WI Democratic Iran had not ahd the cou in 53

[anamarvelo]

what if the us did not listen to britan and let Iran become a stable democracy rather than overthrowing them and replacing it with a pro west puppot goverment.
partuly whats iran role in the modern middle east if they where a democracy?

 

[anotherlurker]

for one thing, the iranians would be a lot more friendly towards the west, seeing how they dont see themselves as the punching bag of the west, at least not as much.

 

[heyou]

for one thing, the iranians would be a lot more friendly towards the west, seeing how they dont see themselves as the punching bag of the west, at least not as much.

Up until 1953, the two imperialist powers that had been pushing Iran around were UK and Russi/USSR. They had no reason yet to dislike US

US intervention earlier, postwar, was on USSR to clear out of northern Iran. That probably was appreciated by Iranians

So whatever the subsequent history of Iran, it should have been more friendly, over the long run to the US (not toward the UK) if not the West generally

 

[MattII]

What would be a good PoD I wonder. Oh you'd have to butterfly away Eisenhower as president probably, which would mean changes back in the Truman administration.

 

[SergeantHeretic]

SImple in the late forties you have to keep the "Anyone who is Anti COmmunist is our pal" minset from taking root, and replace it with "Anyone who is pro democracy is our friend."

 

[MattII]

Britain was a democracy as well, and a much more important one at the time.

 

[SergeantHeretic]

Britain was a democracy as well, and a much more important one at the time.

SO we talk them around to helping us support a democratic Iran.

"Prodemocracy" is a much more supportable and defensable stance than "Anti-Communism".

 

[DanMcCollum]

What would be a good PoD I wonder. Oh you'd have to butterfly away Eisenhower as president probably, which would mean changes back in the Truman administration.

Not neccesarily; the Coup in OTL was a very close thing, with the Shah coming very close to feeling. So, lets say that the Shah is a bit more cowardly than normal and flees to France, and the coup collapses. The Iranian government is likely to blame the UK, and its going to be a huge egg on Churchill's face. Despite Eisenhower's close relationship with Churchill, I doubt that he would be willing to try again (even assuming that America's involvment isn't swept under the carpet; Iran's government is now going to be alerted to the activities of the UK and America, and any future coup will become difficult).
I'm not sure exactly how the Iranian government would develop from this point onward; despite the Prime Minister's stated dislike of Communism, the Communists were becoming an important part of his coalition. I suspect that the UK and America are going to have to come to some agreement with Iran, and I could actually see a Soviet-backed coup sometime in the later 1950s or early 1960s. If it fails ... could we see a Soviet invasion?

 

[stjernkjempe]

Iran were going down the Indian road in the early 50is. Trying to balance between autocratic political leadership and trying to find a balance between democratic centralization/decentralization that suited both central leaders and local leaders personal authority. In this they also balanced between command economy and open market solutions, the nationalization attempts of AIOC is good example of this. A good POD is actually a combination of more savvy British diplomatic strategy in Persia and a series of renegotiations that sooth the egos of some Persian leaders and dampen public opinion would be enough to avoid the coup 53.

Democratic Persia post 53 would look like India whit Oil I guess. There is great pressure for social reforms, educational reforms and infrastructure investments. The oil money would also give Persia a good national finance but might make the corruption problem worse. I would guess the oil trade would make the western powers reluctant to let USSR attack Persia in late 50is early 60is. But I would guess Pakistan more likely to turn towards USSR ITTL as it would be sandwiched between India and Democratic Persia that both would not be all that friendly whit it. Going for more help from USSR is a good counter weight to this as neither would be “communist enough” for USA to give Pakistan support but they are “capitalist enough” to be a thorn in USSR side to finally answer Ali Khan overtures for partnership in late 50is.

Pakistan coming under Soviet influence will butterfly a lot of things in both India and Persia so after that I can’t guess how things will turn out. Development in middle east will also be much different whit a Democratic successful Muslim nation to counter all the dictatorships (and Israel) in the region. Religious development of Islam is also going to be utterly changed by democratic successful institutions in Persia. This would also effect Indonesia and thousands of other small things that is utterly unpredictable.

 

[MattII]

SO we talk them around to helping us support a democratic Iran.

The problem is, Britain stands to lose big (at the time they were only shelling out 16% of the net profit) from Iranian nationalisation of the oil-wells, so the best you can really get is a Saudi-style agreement to split the profits 50/50, which no-one is really happy with, but which suits each side better than what the other would like.

 

[asnys]

Not neccesarily; the Coup in OTL was a very close thing, with the Shah coming very close to feeling. So, lets say that the Shah is a bit more cowardly than normal and flees to France, and the coup collapses. The Iranian government is likely to blame the UK, and its going to be a huge egg on Churchill's face. Despite Eisenhower's close relationship with Churchill, I doubt that he would be willing to try again (even assuming that America's involvment isn't swept under the carpet; Iran's government is now going to be alerted to the activities of the UK and America, and any future coup will become difficult).

I wonder if this might butterfly away some of the other coups the US engaged in in the 50s and 60s. I'm under the (perhaps misinformed) impression that part of the reason we overthrew so many governments was because the first two, Iran and Guatemala, just seemed so easy, and we got used to the idea that we could almost effortlessly knock over uncooperative governments. If, instead, the first coup or two are disasters that the CIA are barely able to keep out of the papers - or maybe they aren't able to keep them out of the papers - I wonder if we might have been more restrained later on.

 

[Wolfpaw]

There's a good chance that it would have happened anyway. The US and the Brits played a big role with regard to funding and bribing Tehrani mobs to demonstrate in favor of the Shah, but there was already a very strong preexisting anti-Mossadegh/anti-democratic sentiment in the 200,000-strong military and the 50,000-strong police force since a shit-ton of the higher-ups were on the British payroll.

At some point Zahedi or some other reactionary general with tanks under his command is going to send them into Tehran and depose Mossadegh.

I would also add that Mossadegh's Iran was hardly "democratic," and the good Doctor had no qualms about dissolving the Majles when it refused to grant him dictatorial powers, to say nothing of Mossadegh's ordering the arrest of the man sent by the Shah to dismiss him in a near-literal "shoot the messenger" scenario.

 

[SergeantHeretic]

Frankly call me crazy, but the big epic fail on the part of the Major democracies in the cold war was supporting fascist dirtbags and even overthrowing emocracies in the name of "Fighting communism".

Are we REALLY suprised at the way the 1990's and oughts turned out given the givens?

 

[Wolfpaw]

Frankly call me crazy, but the big epic fail on the part of the Major democracies in the cold war was supporting fascist dirtbags and even overthrowing emocracies in the name of "Fighting communism".

Are we REALLY suprised at the way the 1990's and oughts turned out given the givens?

Some people are, amazingly.

The harsh reality of the Cold War is that the United States was--more often than not--the Bad Guy in the 3rd World.

But those who like to turn History into a morality play tend to have a rather difficult time accepting this because, "America is a Force for Good."

 

[SergeantHeretic]

Some people are, amazingly.

The harsh reality of the Cold War is that the United States was--more often than not--the Bad Guy in the 3rd World.

But those who like to turn History into a morality play tend to have a rather difficult time accepting this.

It is a titanic absurity that the world's leading liberal democracy never did one single thing to ever support a budding liberal democracy in the third world.

We never met a murderous right wing scumbag we didn't like.

 

[Wolfpaw]

We never met a murderous right wing scumbag we didn't like.

"Better Dead than Red!" and all that.

 

[SergeantHeretic]

"Better Dead than Red!" and all that.

How about better Free than red, after all that right wing fascist jackhole is just as capable of death squads and pogroms and concentration camps and purdges as a Communist state is.

 

[Wolfpaw]

How about better Free than red, after all that right wing fascist jackhole is just as capable of death squads and pogroms and concentration camps and purdges as a Communist state is.

Not according to the assclowns who ran our State and Intelligence departments in the '50s.

 

[SergeantHeretic]

Not according to the assclowns who ran our State and Intelligence departments in the '50s.

Bunch of butt nuggets.

 

[TxCoatl1970]

I agree with y'all about the 1950's US foreign policy

Based on hindsight, US policies in the Third World were always pitched against the great majority of the population's needs and aspirations.
The cronies we backed guaranteed we'd get what we wanted out of there with minimal costs as long as they got their cut.

The reason is simple- fighting WWII against truly monstrous opponents, the USA didn't need to make their case very well to get cooperation from various resistance movements. They typically threw money and weapons around like candy.
Also, out of the Big Three, the US pulled dead last in HUMINT by a considerable margin, because their ELINT and code-cracking capabilities yielded such great results they felt the need for HUMINT unnecessary.

I'm not saying Wild Bill Donovan and Co. of OSS were incompetent, but they cribbed a lot of notes from the Brits' SOE example and exploited ground the Brits paid in blood and sweat to establish with various partisan movements in Continental Europe without crediting the authors or their contributions.

The OSS also didn't exploit the disaffected and idealistic nearly as effectively as the NKVD/OGPU/KGB did via the various Internationals 1920-1940, and later.

The, once anti-Communist hysteria hit during the Turman Administration, no less, folks like the Dixie Section (OSS, State Department et al who liaised with the CCP) were tarred with being Communist sympathizers for merely acknowledging the facts on the ground and thus purged anyone with any sense.

So let's review, how the heck was the US supposed to develop a rational anti-colonial policy when
(A) the biggest perps- the Brits and French were our gallant allies during WWII and politically untouchable until the Suez Crisis? That's eleven years of shenanigans (1945-1956) the Brits and French had US carte blanche that locals neither forgave nor forgot.
(B) Our intelligence apparatus and State Department acted more like a Chamber of Commerce than a useful intel-gathering and analysis group?;
(C) Anyone with sympathies for the vast majority of natives got branded a Commie symp-traitor and drummed out of service?
(D) Did I mention how low a priority human intelligence gathering from the hoi polloi (who probably had socialist leanings anyway) was for the military, CIA, and State Department? They wanted the folks in charge, jealous of their privileges and unwilling to share, who spoke our language or one we were willing to learn, such as French in Vietnam's case, to deliver us the commodities and profits we wanted as long as they got their cut.

To reverse these trends, requires a series of profound changes in American political expectations, priorities, and rhetoric that it would be unrecognizable from 1900 on.
You'd have to butterfly the whole banana republic/ gunboat diplomacy phase from McKinley on that endears us yanquis so to Latin Americans to this day where we develop the reflexes of supporting a coup whenever it looked like an honest vote would mean more expensive coffee, bananas or oil.