WI: No Operation Ajax

Just a thought, what if president Eisenhower had follower Truman's lead and not okayed Operation Ajax, and had instead tried to find a diplomatic solution to the Abadan Crisis? Would it have made the region more stable? would it have destabilised NATO?
 
Iran doesn't produce the same increased oil revenue that occurs with foreign investment and companies operating inside it's borders. The state under the National Front doesn't reach the same levels of wealth that Iran will under the Shah. The USA shows little interest in Iran and ignores them for the next twenty five years or so.

The only problems I can see are something of a rift opening amidst somewhat strained Anglo-American relations (the USA not returning the favours that Britain provided during Korea and smaller, post WWII, largely anti-Communist conflicts).
 

Phyrx

Banned
What would have happened if Britain and Co. had used economic sanctions on Iran, instead of launching the coup? Do you think they could have had any success with that?
 
Britain did have economic sanctions on Iran in effect. The entire oil industry was boycotting Iranian oil, and the economy was quickly going into crisis. This was leading to all sorts of political problems which the US thought would play into the hands of the Iranian Communists (Tudeh). And that was the reason the US backed the coup.

The problem is that Mossadeq by that time was not willing to compromise. He had defeated Anglo-Iranian,a nd they had come back to him with a deal that Iran would have quickly accepted at the beginning of the crisis. But Mossadeq wasn't willing to back down an inch on the nationalization even though it lead to the boycott which was ruining Iran's economy.

Mossadeq was a very strange man. Not quite the democratic hero of legend. He seems to have been a truly decent person, but by the time of the coup this "democratic" leader was ruling by decree and the Iranian parliament (majlis) had totally surrended their power to him. He seemed incapable to making political comprises which is at the hear of democracy. He was indifferent to the collapse of the Iranian economy because of his stubbornness. The US was originally very pro-Mossadeq, but the more they dealt with him, the more alienated they became.

There is no guarantee that Iran would have developed into a strong democracy under Mossadeq. He might have become a fairly benign dictator - but one can argue that the Shah was so for most of his regime. We don't know how Mossadeq would have changed after his government became flush with oil wealth, especially in the 1970s. Would he have remained a personally decent person, or adopted harsher or megamaniacal tendencies by being corrupted by the oil wealth?

It's hard to see a good resolution to the crisis with Mossadeq's personality. One could see a failed coup attempt which was very farsical at times. But Mossadeq agreeing to a compromise? I don't see it untless you just want to handwave it as part of a thought experiment.
 
Top