WI: No Iranian hostage crisis

I searched for old threads, but most seem focused on worse outcomes than OTL.

So what would happen if the embassy is never taken over, or is resolved quickly without much drama? How would this effect the US-Iranian relationship and the Middle East in general? Would Jimmy Carter get a second term?
 

Paul MacQ

Donor
Without Iran being held up as such an evil state by the US. things in the Middle east could be very different. Possible peaceful existence even.

I do not know how much an ease of relations it would take for Saddam to decide Iran is not a good option to attack. If there is a hint of Iran and US being friendly again and sale of weapons possible. I do not see a war in the Early 80's that did much to fire up the Power of the Revolutionary Guard.
 
The only thing I know for sure is that Jimmy Carter would have gotten re-elected. He was well-liked before the crisis.

I think the bad economy would defeat him but by a lower margin. There would be a wide electoral college margin, SO Reagan has bragging rights but a narrow popular vote victory. Reagan does not get the psychological boost of being declared the winner before the polls closed on the West Coast. There would be a Democratic Senate but enough Conservative Southern Democrats to get the Reagan tax and budget cuts enacted.
 
The hostage crisis caused a brief rally-around-the-POTUS effect right in the middle of the Democratic primaries. Without it, could Kennedy do better in the early primaries and beat Carter?
 
If the hostages were successfully either evacuated or rescued from this situation by Jimmy Carter than not much would have changed from the current timeline. Iraq would still invade, and Iran would be just as politically isolated by the West as it is today. Carter might have a better chance of getting reelected and have better returns in the 1980 election, but the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the worsening economy would have still cost him the White House to Reagan.
 
Without Iran being held up as such an evil state by the US. things in the Middle east could be very different. Possible peaceful existence even.

I do not know how much an ease of relations it would take for Saddam to decide Iran is not a good option to attack. If there is a hint of Iran and US being friendly again and sale of weapons possible. I do not see a war in the Early 80's that did much to fire up the Power of the Revolutionary Guard.

If the pro-American Shah is overthrown by anti-american mullahs, the US and Iran are still not going to be allies.

And Iran is still going to be a mess, ie an easy target (or so Saddam believed)
 
If the hostages were successfully either evacuated or rescued from this situation by Jimmy Carter than not much would have changed from the current timeline. Iraq would still invade, and Iran would be just as politically isolated by the West as it is today. Carter might have a better chance of getting reelected and have better returns in the 1980 election, but the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the worsening economy would have still cost him the White House to Reagan.

Why? No real bad blood between the US-Iran and then Iran gets invaded by a Soviet client state? The US would be much more willing to support Iran, perhaps also using Iran as a way to get more support into Afghanistan as well.
 
I think the bad economy would defeat him but by a lower margin. There would be a wide electoral college margin, SO Reagan has bragging rights but a narrow popular vote victory. Reagan does not get the psychological boost of being declared the winner before the polls closed on the West Coast. There would be a Democratic Senate but enough Conservative Southern Democrats to get the Reagan tax and budget cuts enacted.

Close but not quite. I was a relatively young homeowner in those years, and the memories of the Carter era interest rates are still very painful. From the viewpoint of one who was there, I think the only thing that changes is the margin of victory overall: it's not as tidal, but Reagan still winds up with a GOP-run Senate, a vast electoral majority and a still sizable but not huge popular majority. Carter will not be recalled as poorly as he deservedly is (his weak reputation is entirely on [lack of] merit) but he won't be remembered fondly at all, either.
 
Any scenario where United States citizens are taken hostage in their own embassy, even if it was for a short time, would lead to the same (or nearly the same) strain in relations as we see in OTL.

However, if there was no hostage crisis at all, I think we'd see much better US Iranian relations. In the ATL, the US Embassy might have been closed for a few weeks due to the revolution, but would have re-opened and resumed normal operations once the violence has subsided. Furthermore, the tension between the two countries would not be as bad as in OTL.

Having said that, the US would still not have tolerated a nuclear Iran and what we see with Canada's embassy in Tehran in OTL (they closed it last year), we'd probably have also seen with the US embassy in the ATL.

In addition, I don't think the US would have supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War as much as it did in OTL. They probably would have been more neutral. I also question whether the US would have still shot down the civilian Iran Air Flight 655 in 1988 if it was in the ATL.

All in all, I think relations would be better than OTL, but not pristine and it'd be reminiscent of the UK or Canada's relations with Iran in OTL.
 
Why? No real bad blood between the US-Iran and then Iran gets invaded by a Soviet client state? The US would be much more willing to support Iran, perhaps also using Iran as a way to get more support into Afghanistan as well.

Even before the hostage crisis the Iranians used to refer to the US as the Great Satan.
 
Reportedly, Carter was pushed or persuaded by former Secretary of State Kissinger to admit the Shah into the States for medical treatment under the grounds of not betraying an old friend and ally. Even after two years of leaving the State Department, Kissinger did (and probably still does) command much respect and influence.
 
Reportedly, Carter was pushed or persuaded by former Secretary of State Kissinger to admit the Shah into the States for medical treatment under the grounds of not betraying an old friend and ally. Even after two years of leaving the State Department, Kissinger did (and probably still does) command much respect and influence.

Yep, this is a good watch (ABC News Report from 11/11/1979):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8bC1DEYbI4

My how better the news was reported back then.
 
Even without a Hostage Crisis, the revolution-induced oil crisis will still keep the economy in terrible shape - so Carter will still be dealing with a difficult economy and without the rally-round-the-flag effect, Kennedy has a much better chance of defeating Carter. Most likely, Carter manages to defeat Kennedy but still loses to Reagan albeit by a smaller margin.

That said, this is an interesting scenario, because without the Hostage Crisis, the entire history of Iran and Iran-US relations will be drastically different.

The Hostage Crisis was a very seminal moment in Iran's history. The atmosphere of crisis allowed the Ayatollah and his followers to consolidate power, purge moderates, and was what actually ended US-Iran diplomatic relations, which both sides were trying to repair at the time.

Without the Hostage Crisis, the moderates are in a stronger position, the Islamists in a weaker one, Iran and the US don't break relations, and Iraq doesn't dare invade Iran. Possibly also meaning no Gulf War, meaning no US bases in Saudi Arabia, no Bin Laden... lots of butterflies from this.

In Iran itself, the clerical regime either falls or is moderated significantly once Khomeini dies. Iran might still be called "Islamic Republic" today, but the Supreme Leader will probably mostly a ceremonial position, and the country won't be closed to the West and will probably be substantially wealthier.
 
As others have mentioned, Kennedy would have been in a much stronger position to challenge Carter, and may very well be able to win the Presidential nomination; however, I personally believe it would be an inverse of what the Republicans experienced in '76; the two go to the convention with tall stacks of delegates, but it is the President that ultimately loses out.

From then, it depends on if Kennedy agrees to debate Reagan with Anderson; Anderson would likely fight with Kennedy for the Moderate to Liberal voters, while Reagan will find himself with many of the Southern Democrats that would have otherwise voted for Carter.
 
I don't think it would have made any difference had there not been a hostage crisis. Carter may have had a few more votes, but I think he likely would have lost due to all of the other drama going on. It just wouldn't have been as much of a landslide, though.
 
Top