WI: No Operation Ajax or Operation Ajax fails?

In 1951 the Iranian parliament voted nearly unanimously to nationalize the oil industry - taking away control of the Iranian oil industry from the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC). The British government instigated a worldwide economic boycott of Iran in attempt to pressure the Iranian government at the same time working to undermine the government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh from within. In 1953, the British and American governments decided to overthrow the democratically elected government (Operation Ajax) allowing Shah Reza Mohammed Pahlavi to move from constitutional to authoritarian monarch at the head of a military government.

In the OTL, the U.S. essentially propped up the Shah's government until the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Two possibilities here which could have radically different implications for the region:

1.) Operation Ajax never happened - the Eisenhower goverment decides to follow Truman's example and doesn't intervene, or;

2.) Operation Ajax is attempted but fails with conspirators admitting they were prompted/helped by the US and UK.
 
It's Mohammed Reza Pahlavi and somehow I get the feeling that no coup leads to economic slowdowns for both the US and Britain without quick access to the Shah's oil. If a coup is attempted and fails I almost guarantee Mossadegh will turn to the Soviet Union to protect his country, the Soviets who were already backing the Tudehs smile and pat themselves on the back because they just got another major Middle Eastern nation into their camp. Meanwhile the US tries even harder to work with groups like the Ba'athists in Iraq, also Israel without the Shah is going to have some trouble.

Finally I never thought I would have gotten the chance to talk about modern Iranian history with someone.
 
It would result in a much more stable Middle East than the one we know today. Iran would also be a much more prosperous state.

Furthermore, since the Middle East is stable, chances are that the US will not have to intervene in Afghanistan and Iraq, and will avoid all the pitfalls those two wars brought.

EDIT: And if a coup is attempted and fails, the US will be seen in a much less favorable light by pretty much everyone in the Middle East.
 
Or since the US needs a friend in the Middle East we pal around with Saddam as per OTL but work harder to keep said friendship... Afghanistan largely seemed to operate in a vacuum in its history, I don't see how a stabilized regime in Iran would lead to a more stable Afghanistan save for maybe a few border policing objectives, then again neither the Shah nor the current Iranian government ever bothered to do much in Afghanistan.

Also I think an Iran that is both alienated from and sanctioned by the West is very, very likely to turn towards the Soviet Union for assistance, with all the Cold War politicking that that involves. I fear that Mossadegh surviving butterflies away a symptom of the disease, but not the disease itself.
 
Absent a highly-militarized, authoritarian pseudo-hegemonic Iran, Iraq might well have taken a less autocratic direction.
 
Absent a highly-militarized, authoritarian pseudo-hegemonic Iran, Iraq might well have taken a less autocratic direction.

That isn't so much the issue, somewhere in Syria someone's still starting the Ba'ath Party, the Ba'ath Party still is an Arab nationalist group that at best disdains at and at worst actively plots against the Iranians. It's an issue of the US needing a girl to dance with in the Middle East and without Iran to fill that role, that's going to be someone else.
 
The US definitely hardens its ties with Pakistan and Iraq as its best/only counterweights against Iran; might the CIA try something with Afghanistan, or would that be a bit too dangerous for Dulles et al?

What happens with the Free Officers' Movement in Egypt?
 
The US definitely hardens its ties with Pakistan and Iraq as its best/only counterweights against Iran; might the CIA try something with Afghanistan, or would that be a bit too dangerous for Dulles et al?

What happens with the Free Officers' Movement in Egypt?

USA let it happen OTL, the Egyptian monarchy was more pro-British as I recall, we'd probably be more adamant about pursuing a friendship with Nasser rather than dropping it like OTL.
 
It's Mohammed Reza Pahlavi

Good catch - not sure how I let that slip by.

So what do the '60s in the Middle East look like? If you're right and the Iranian government starts drawing closer to the Soviets, does that have any impact on if/when the Soviets decide to roll into Afghanistan? Is it possible that the Soviets have something closer to a free hand in Afghanistan through the mid-60s with Iran's friendly regime sharing such a long border with the Afghans - especially in light of America's increasing involvement in Southeast Asia?

Or take it a step farther - does the advent of a Soviet-friendly Iran focus American attention on "stopping the spread of Communism" in the Middle East rather than in Southeast Asia?
 
The two cases are very different. If there is no Operation Ajax, then Iran and the US aren't neccessarily estranged - the nationalised elements of the Anglo-Persian oil company will still be dependent on outside expertise, which I imagine that the US oil majors will be more than happy to sell now that their British rivals have been driven out.
 
The two cases are very different. If there is no Operation Ajax, then Iran and the US aren't neccessarily estranged - the nationalised elements of the Anglo-Persian oil company will still be dependent on outside expertise, which I imagine that the US oil majors will be more than happy to sell now that their British rivals have been driven out.

True enough. Depending on which POD you look at I think that the long term consequences have the potential to be radically different. So in this case, with NO Operation Ajax, what happens to the political situation in the Middle East in the following 10 - 20 years? Thus far a lot of the responses have focused on a FAILED Ajax which pushes the Iranian government closer to the Soviets. In the absence of Ajax, I would think that the Iranians don't have a vested interest in getting in bed with the Soviets but the lack of Ajax also suggests some pretty fundamental changes to American foreign policy of the day.
 
Top