WI: Joint Soviet-American Intervention in Iran 1979

Alcsentre Calanice

Gone Fishin'
Pretty much what the title says. What if the Americans and Soviets, who both couldn't hope to benefit from an Islamic regime in Persia, decided to occupy Iran?

How would this influence the 1980 election in the US, and the War in Afghanistan?
 
Pretty much what the title says. What if the Americans and Soviets, who both couldn't hope to benefit from an Islamic regime in Persia, decided to occupy Iran?

How would this influence the 1980 election in the US, and the War in Afghanistan?

No chance for this at all. From the US viewpoint the replacement of the Shah by an Islamist government was a pure disaster. From the Soviet viewpoint, while it was obviously less desirable than a Communist Iran and did have potential dangers, it nevertheless also had big advantages (which is not surprising, given that while the Cold War was not a pure zero-sum game, it nevertheless was true that, other things being equal, developments that weakened the US were seen as good by the USSR and vice versa):

"The boon for Moscow was a grave defeat for Washington. The new revolutionary government, deriving its authority from Ayatollah Rouhollah Khomeini, quickly reversed the political-strategic orientation of the former regime, and the process of de-Westernisation began. First, the multinational corporations, especially the American firms, were expelled. Khomeini considered it essential to remove the underpinnings of the Shah's industrialisation programme in order to Islamicise Iran, a step that consequently proved to be a major cause of the country's economic decline. Second, the two American-manned electronic intelligence collection stations—one adjacent to the Soviet border near Bandar Shah on the shores of the Caspian Sea and the other, in Kabkam, a desolate spot in the mountains eighty miles south of Meshed—were shut down. No longer could the United States use them to gather data on Soviet nuclear and missile testing in Soviet Central Asia. (Ironically, their loss was a blow to Soviet hopes of America's ratification of the SALT II treaty, because it strengthened the position of those in the US Senate who opposed the treaty on the ground that effective verification of Soviet compliance had been seriously weakened.) Third, Iran immediately reduced arms purchases and withdrew from the role of policeman for the Persian Gulf, thus depriving the United States of a reliable ally who could safeguard Western interests in the region. Should the Soviet-backed People's Democratic Republic of Yemen (PDRY) attempt to foment another insurrection in the Dhofar province of Oman, Iran would not now send troops to defend the pro-Western Sultan as it had in 1973-75. Nor would it help any of the other Arab monarchs on the Arabian Peninsula, to whom in the long run Khomeini's religious fundamentalism is a far greater threat than the Shah's imperial ambitions ever [had been]." https://www.jstor.org/stable/2619862

Later on, Iranian-Soviet relations did sour, starting with the invasion of Afghanistan at the end of 1979 and continuing with the 1982-3 crackdown on the Tudeh party. But in 1979, the Soviets still hoped for good relations with Khomeini. They were in fact the first government in the world to recognize the Islamic Republic in February 1979. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Russia_relations And there was no likely alternative to the Islamic Republic that would be acceptable to both the USSR and the US.

(This is not even to mention that the Soviets were historically very reluctant to use the Soviet army abroad for any purpose other than to prop up shaky pro-Soviet communist regimes. Afghanistan was not an exception to this; Iran would have been.)
 
Last edited:

Alcsentre Calanice

Gone Fishin'

Thank you for your extensive answer, and please forgive me that my comment will be quite short.

If I understand you correctly, the Soviets didn't understand that the Islamic Republic would turn against both the Americans and the Soviets. They lacked foresight and a competent analysis of the Islamic Revolution.
 
Thank you for your extensive answer, and please forgive me that my comment will be quite short.

If I understand you correctly, the Soviets didn't understand that the Islamic Republic would turn against both the Americans and the Soviets. They lacked foresight and a competent analysis of the Islamic Revolution.
I imagine that they knew the Iranians would still be miffed about earlier attempts to break off the Azeri and Kurdish areas as Communist states, as well as figuring their state atheism might be an issue, but didn't care much on those matters. This was just another country shaking off European and American influence. I suppose the Soviets might have thought they would be able to co-opt the leadership, or make sure that socialists (or at least those people amiable to the USSR) got a share of power. Come to think of it, wasn't there various socialist and democratic element she in the initial revolution, with the fundamentalists coming out on hat was first thought to be coalition government?
 
Thank you for your extensive answer, and please forgive me that my comment will be quite short.

If I understand you correctly, the Soviets didn't understand that the Islamic Republic would turn against both the Americans and the Soviets. They lacked foresight and a competent analysis of the Islamic Revolution.

Even if they were convinced the Islamist government would be equally hostile to the US and USSR it would still from their viewpoint be an improvement over the Shah's regime, which was a US ally. The only government they would consider an improvement over the Islamic Republic would be a pro-Soviet one, and the US was obviously not going to intervene militarily to establish that. (And in any event, as I noted, the USSR did not use the Soviet army except in countries where communist regimes had already been established and were in danger of falling. And the US was in mood for all-out military intervention, either.)
 
About the only way I could see this happening would be if both the American and Soviet Embassies were seized and held.
 
About the only way I could see this happening would be if both the American and Soviet Embassies were seized and held.
...and then the revolutionaries started executing hostages on live TV. The level of distrust between Moscow and Washington, after all, was enormous, with some justification.
 
In addition to what @David T said, by 1979 US-Soviet relations had really gone downhill. Various events, such as the deployment of the SS-20, US opposition to Soviet human rights violations, Soviet support for Marxist regimes around the world, etc. had turned the two countries hostile towards each other again (although the final blow would come in December 1979, when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan). The Soviets also had to worry about Afghanistan, which even before the invasion was a headache for the Soviets. Overcoming these suspicions would be very difficult even if the Soviets wanted to remove Khomeini.
 
One variation of this idea might be if the US approached the USSR about using Baku from which to mount a rescue operation over the Caspian Sea. The Soviets would have accomplished a substantial propaganda coup by agreeing to this, not to mention that seizing Embassies are not in any nation-states interest.
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
One variation of this idea might be if the US approached the USSR about using Baku from which to mount a rescue operation over the Caspian Sea. The Soviets would have accomplished a substantial propaganda coup by agreeing to this, not to mention that seizing Embassies are not in any nation-states interest.

To be honest, Turkey is a better staging point than the USSR.
Regardless, for the two countries to work together against anyone and anything would take an extraordinary situation. At that time the relations were terrible plus there is the institutional problems with the mid-level bosses on both sides believing they know better than politicians when it comes to trusting the other side.
 
One variation of this idea might be if the US approached the USSR about using Baku from which to mount a rescue operation over the Caspian Sea. The Soviets would have accomplished a substantial propaganda coup by agreeing to this, not to mention that seizing Embassies are not in any nation-states interest.

The Soviets do not seem to have been too concerned about cooperating with the US to save the life of the kidnapped US ambassador to Afghanistan:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolph_Dubs
http://adst.org/2013/01/the-assassination-of-ambassador-spike-dubs-kabul-1979/#.WlAtYuSWyUk

The whole way of thinking that some people here want to attribute to the Soviets--"this sets a dangerous precedent that might be used against our embassies, too, so we've got to cooperate with the Americans"--is just not the way the Soviet leadership thought. True, they knew that the seizure of the embassy was a violation of international law which they must publicly condemn, but at the same time they wanted to drive the greatest possible wedge between Iran and the US, and Soviet propaganda directed to that purpose did not abate after the hostages were taken.

"Moscow radio reported that the United States was preparing a naval blockade and other "military actions” against Iran. The Soviet state radio said the United States could have resolved the crisis by meeting the "just demands” of Iran to extradite the Shah and return his wealth, but that Washington wanted to keep the crisis alive as an excuse to seize the oil fields of the Persian Gulf region..." https://archive.org/stream/IranHost...ge Crisis Chronology of Daily Events_djvu.txt
 
No chance for this at all. From the US viewpoint the replacement of the Shah by an Islamist government was a pure disaster. From the Soviet viewpoint, while it was obviously less desirable than a Communist Iran and did have potential dangers, it nevertheless also had big advantages (which is not surprising, given that while the Cold War was not a pure zero-sum game, it nevertheless was true that, other things being equal, developments that weakened the US were seen as good by the USSR and vice versa):

"The boon for Moscow was a grave defeat for Washington. The new revolutionary government, deriving its authority from Ayatollah Rouhollah Khomeini, quickly reversed the political-strategic orientation of the former regime, and the process of de-Westernisation began. First, the multinational corporations, especially the American firms, were expelled. Khomeini considered it essential to remove the underpinnings of the Shah's industrialisation programme in order to Islamicise Iran, a step that consequently proved to be a major cause of the country's economic decline. Second, the two American-manned electronic intelligence collection stations—one adjacent to the Soviet border near Bandar Shah on the shores of the Caspian Sea and the other, in Kabkam, a desolate spot in the mountains eighty miles south of Meshed—were shut down. No longer could the United States use them to gather data on Soviet nuclear and missile testing in Soviet Central Asia. (Ironically, their loss was a blow to Soviet hopes of America's ratification of the SALT II treaty, because it strengthened the position of those in the US Senate who opposed the treaty on the ground that effective verification of Soviet compliance had been seriously weakened.) Third, Iran immediately reduced arms purchases and withdrew from the role of policeman for the Persian Gulf, thus depriving the United States of a reliable ally who could safeguard Western interests in the region. Should the Soviet-backed People's Democratic Republic of Yemen (PDRY) attempt to foment another insurrection in the Dhofar province of Oman, Iran would not now send troops to defend the pro-Western Sultan as it had in 1973-75. Nor would it help any of the other Arab monarchs on the Arabian Peninsula, to whom in the long run Khomeini's religious fundamentalism is a far greater threat than the Shah's imperial ambitions ever [had been]." https://www.jstor.org/stable/2619862

Later on, Iranian-Soviet relations did sour, starting with the invasion of Afghanistan at the end of 1979 and continuing with the 1982-3 crackdown on the Tudeh party. But in 1979, the Soviets still hoped for good relations with Khomeini. They were in fact the first government in the world to recognize the Islamic Republic in February 1979. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Russia_relations And there was no likely alternative to the Islamic Republic that would be acceptable to both the USSR and the US.

(This is not even to mention that the Soviets were historically very reluctant to use the Soviet army abroad for any purpose other than to prop up shaky pro-Soviet communist regimes. Afghanistan was not an exception to this; Iran would have been.)

All of this, with knobs on. Also just like the other vast, bureaucratized superpower -- the US -- the Soviet leadership were fond of raw intelligence data that flattered their confirmation bias. A number of lower to mid-level diplomats and KGB/GRU sources made a nice living selling the Presidium on the idea that leftist Islamists, or outright Tudeh moles, would rise steadily through the revolutionary ranks, Moscow just needed to stand pat and give it time for historical inevitability to kick in.

And losing the TACKSMAN sites up on the Caspian was a very, very big deal. IIRC rather like the Argo business it was the Canadians who got the technical staff out, after they were nearly taken hostage by Iranian coworkers to demand back pay from the transitional government, on Air Command (now RCAF again) CC-130s.
 
Top