WI: Nuclear Iran in the Seventies?

"The introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran's economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals." -- Henry Kissinger, 1976

What if, as part of an effort to combat oil shortages in the seventies, the US and Iranian governments set up a joint program to build nuclear power plants across the country? In addition to just building them, the US would also provide training so that the plants could be run by Iranians, in addition to selling the Iranian government stockpiles of Uranium and Plutonium. The ultimate goal would, obviously, be to make as much of Iran's oil exportable as possible.

The first question seems to be: How does this affect the 1979 Revolution?

Does it happen at all? Is it sooner? Later? Is it still religious in nature? If there is still an anti-Shah, anti-US revolution, then what are the effects of a nuclear-powered, independent Iran?

Even if the revolution (or one like it) doesn't happen; what do the Soviets think about this? How does it affect life for the average Iranian? Of course the Iranian government will be spending a lot of money on this program -- what effect will that have? The inverse question to that is -- what effect will increased exportation have on the Iranian oil industry?

Would the Iranians attempt to develop nuclear weapons with or without the US's blessing? What would America's position be on an Iran with nuclear bombs or even ICBMs?
 
Actually, a US utility group ran ads praising the Shah's decision to seek nuclear power. The ads have been posted on here twice...
And, IOTL, and NOW, the US is willing for a number of Mideast nations to seek nuclear power- just not Iran or Syria...
 
Are we talking about giving the Shah the button or just nuclear power plants or setting up missiles under USA control.?
 

Cook

Banned
Are we talking about giving the Shah the button or just nuclear power plants or setting up missiles under USA control.?

Kerblo’s hit the nail on the head.

Providing Nuclear Power for electrical generation is a very different thing to positioning American Missiles in Iran (like the did in Turkey) or giving nuclear weapons technology to Iran.

It’s my understanding that Soviet Nuclear reactors were designed to allow them to provide Plutonium for weapons while American reactors generally weren’t.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Kerblo’s hit the nail on the head.

Providing Nuclear Power for electrical generation is a very different thing to positioning American Missiles in Iran (like the did in Turkey) or giving nuclear weapons technology to Iran.

It’s my understanding that Soviet Nuclear reactors were designed to allow them to provide Plutonium for weapons while American reactors generally weren’t.

They were civilian power plants. I'll admit that it's something I only ran across in passing in my research for Soviet Invasion of Iran, 1981, but the sense seemed to be that if Iran wanted it (and it did) then it could have it. The US was gung ho about it.

So...let's suppose the Revolution happens on schedule in 1979, but there's a nuclear powerplant taking care of the grid in Teheran and one under construction at, say, Isfahan to help power the Khatami air base there where the new Tomcat base was built.

If there's no hostages, I don't see Carter or Reagan having a problem sending in airstrikes to take them out. The Israelis did it, heck, the Iranians even tried it against the Iraqis once. The USN can do it.
 

Cook

Banned
So...let's suppose the Revolution happens on schedule in 1979, but there's a nuclear powerplant taking care of the grid in Teheran and one under construction at, say, Isfahan to help power the Khatami air base there where the new Tomcat base was built.

If there's no hostages, I don't see Carter or Reagan having a problem sending in airstrikes to take them out. The Israelis did it, heck, the Iranians even tried it against the Iraqis once. The USN can do it.

The Revolution’s Ace up the sleave.
 
Top