WI : Persia offers to become a British vassal to avoid the Anglo-Persian War

As title really.

So the region of Herat declared independence from Persia, leading to the Anglo-Persian War.

Whilst a bit of an odd option, what if the Persians agreed to become a vassal state of the British (or some sort of autonomous part) - in exchange for authority over the British Central Asian concerns.

The rationale being that working with and for the British at this point could expand and restore Iran to its full height, control over all of Central Asia, the Caucuses, and even parts of Arabia.

Considering the Great Game is in play at this time, do you think the British would accept this offer? What would the impact of that acceptance be?
 
As title really.

So the region of Herat declared independence from Persia, leading to the Anglo-Persian War.

Whilst a bit of an odd option, what if the Persians agreed to become a vassal state of the British (or some sort of autonomous part) - in exchange for authority over the British Central Asian concerns.

The rationale being that working with and for the British at this point could expand and restore Iran to its full height, control over all of Central Asia, the Caucuses, and even parts of Arabia.

Considering the Great Game is in play at this time, do you think the British would accept this offer? What would the impact of that acceptance be?

If the British want to piss off Russia they should go for it but I expect a Russian intervention.

And I fail to see how such a big country volunteers to be a vassal of the British residing in India, for just to save Herat.

Possible but unlikely. If it happens: much more tense Anglo-Russian relationship with the Russian Czars becoming paranoid of being surrounded. The British get more influence in Central Asia unless Russia goes ahead and annex Bukhara. The Ottomans might be relieved with heavier British presence near the Caucasus but also cautious not to let Russia fall apart (trading one great power for another is not a safe thing to do). The soar Anglo-Russian alliances will lead to alternate alliances in early 1900s (like: France/Italy/Russia vs AH/Germany/UK or France/UK/AH vs Russia/Germany/Italy).

Much butterflies.

But like I said, almost impossible without pissing off Russia which Britain does not want.
 
If the British want to piss off Russia they should go for it but I expect a Russian intervention.

And I fail to see how such a big country volunteers to be a vassal of the British residing in India, for just to save Herat.

Possible but unlikely. If it happens: much more tense Anglo-Russian relationship with the Russian Czars becoming paranoid of being surrounded. The British get more influence in Central Asia unless Russia goes ahead and annex Bukhara. The Ottomans might be relieved with heavier British presence near the Caucasus but also cautious not to let Russia fall apart (trading one great power for another is not a safe thing to do). The soar Anglo-Russian alliances will lead to alternate alliances in early 1900s (like: France/Italy/Russia vs AH/Germany/UK or France/UK/AH vs Russia/Germany/Italy).

Much butterflies.

But like I said, almost impossible without pissing off Russia which Britain does not want.

It is unusual, but as I said, the logic being that under the auspices of Britain, and being the intermediary for the British, Iran plays the long game of using it to recover possessions from Russia, expand in the Middle East, and increase British Financing of the Iranian economy. I'm not sure what the exact terms would be - I guess we're looking at a Protectorate under the British Crown, or something of the like - and what that means in real terms outside of the right to deploy troops/engage in Imperial Preference I'm not sure. But Iran gets protection, investment, secures its eastern border and in exchange the British get access to resources, etc.

Would it annoy Russia? Of course. But the key is that not only can Britain say it has effectively won the Great Game - a strong British-aligned Iran with British economic interests (perhaps more Anglo-Iranian style companies, jointly owned by the Iranian and British Crowns) and a mutually aligned army that focuses on Russian and Ottoman borders is quite a prize for the British. It also provides a base for any actions if India starts to become a problem - and in theory could be used as a model for handling long term problems with India.

Honestly - if there was a war, the depth of Iran, plus the ability to deploy troops from India in Central Asia, and clear logistics makes me think that Britain is in too good a position (suddenly) for Russia to be willing to risk intervention, or if it still took the gamble, my money would be on Russia losing - and badly, perhaps even fulfilling the aims of the Qajar Dynasty in restoring chunks of Central Asia, and the Caucauses - not too much as the British would likely want to prevent their new vassal from being too large - but enough to definitively resolve the issue.

Considering we're looking at a flashpoint less than a year after the Crimean War leads me to believe that any war would destabilise Russia - and we still have Palmerston in charge in the UK, who might see this as his way to get a second crack at Russia, and weaken them for good - perhaps even leading to a free Ukraine as a result of the war if it went that far.
 
It is unusual, but as I said, the logic being that under the auspices of Britain, and being the intermediary for the British, Iran plays the long game of using it to recover possessions from Russia, expand in the Middle East, and increase British Financing of the Iranian economy. I'm not sure what the exact terms would be - I guess we're looking at a Protectorate under the British Crown, or something of the like - and what that means in real terms outside of the right to deploy troops/engage in Imperial Preference I'm not sure. But Iran gets protection, investment, secures its eastern border and in exchange the British get access to resources, etc.

Most of the ground they'd lost to Russia was lost while they were allied with Britain, though. Would they really trust the British to help them in any sort of revanchist ambitions after having been let down twice before? And for that matter, they can turn against Russia, perhaps, but that precludes too much expansion into the Ottoman-held Middle East at the same time, since the British would value the Turks more than them.

Would it annoy Russia? Of course. But the key is that not only can Britain say it has effectively won the Great Game - a strong British-aligned Iran with British economic interests (perhaps more Anglo-Iranian style companies, jointly owned by the Iranian and British Crowns) and a mutually aligned army that focuses on Russian and Ottoman borders is quite a prize for the British. It also provides a base for any actions if India starts to become a problem - and in theory could be used as a model for handling long term problems with India.

It can? How? This is still relatively early in the Great Game, and the Russians can expand into Turkestan regardless of what the Persians are doing. At a minimum, Afghanistan and the Pamirs still require careful attention.

Honestly - if there was a war, the depth of Iran, plus the ability to deploy troops from India in Central Asia, and clear logistics makes me think that Britain is in too good a position (suddenly) for Russia to be willing to risk intervention, or if it still took the gamble, my money would be on Russia losing - and badly, perhaps even fulfilling the aims of the Qajar Dynasty in restoring chunks of Central Asia, and the Caucauses - not too much as the British would likely want to prevent their new vassal from being too large - but enough to definitively resolve the issue.

Problem - many of Iran's largest cities, including Tehran, are in the north of the country. If anything, that depth works against the British trying to ferry troops up from the Persian Gulf. Not sure what you even mean by clear logistics, unless you're envisioning a war taking place after the British have had decades to overhaul the country's roads, which doesn't sound like what's described in your OP.

Considering we're looking at a flashpoint less than a year after the Crimean War leads me to believe that any war would destabilise Russia - and we still have Palmerston in charge in the UK, who might see this as his way to get a second crack at Russia, and weaken them for good - perhaps even leading to a free Ukraine as a result of the war if it went that far.

Well, if something like this were to happen soon after Crimea, then I rather doubt the Russians would intercede at all. Still, I have to repeat my observation about the record of broken promises between the Persians and the British from previous decades - it seems unlikely that the British would be trusted this much in Tehran, and it would be such an odd move that the British themselves could easily suspect some sort of deception, and reject it on those grounds. In any case, any country that's ready to submit to vassalhood doesn't get to demand important strategic objectives like Herat.
 
Most of the ground they'd lost to Russia was lost while they were allied with Britain, though. Would they really trust the British to help them in any sort of revanchist ambitions after having been let down twice before? And for that matter, they can turn against Russia, perhaps, but that precludes too much expansion into the Ottoman-held Middle East at the same time, since the British would value the Turks more than them.

As I said, it is an odd option - but being part of Britain, and Britain refusing to defend it is far more politically contentious at home then doing so with an ally.

It can? How? This is still relatively early in the Great Game, and the Russians can expand into Turkestan regardless of what the Persians are doing. At a minimum, Afghanistan and the Pamirs still require careful attention.

England has easily the largest population in the area, and given time to build infrastructure between India and Persia (i.e. Khyber Pass railways, etc) - Russia simply cannot apply the same number of troops to the region. I admit "Winning the Great Game" is nebulous, but I'd call it. Russia might still get some stuff, but overall, Britain has won there.

Problem - many of Iran's largest cities, including Tehran, are in the north of the country. If anything, that depth works against the British trying to ferry troops up from the Persian Gulf. Not sure what you even mean by clear logistics, unless you're envisioning a war taking place after the British have had decades to overhaul the country's roads, which doesn't sound like what's described in your OP.

That is true - I won't deny that, but Russia still has to fight through hostile mountains, or eastward around the Caspian Sea, where logistics are no better. Comparably, I'd say Anglo-Iran is in a better position, which gets better with time, as more British troops and financing arrives.

Well, if something like this were to happen soon after Crimea, then I rather doubt the Russians would intercede at all. Still, I have to repeat my observation about the record of broken promises between the Persians and the British from previous decades - it seems unlikely that the British would be trusted this much in Tehran, and it would be such an odd move that the British themselves could easily suspect some sort of deception, and reject it on those grounds. In any case, any country that's ready to submit to vassalhood doesn't get to demand important strategic objectives like Herat.

I agree, I doubt they'd intercede that early and risk the treaty of Paris.

True, it is an odd move, and I'd expect them to be skeptical. It'd probably as good a WI in that timeline as anything "What if the British Accepted" "DWBI : The British Refused".

I don't think that is a fair assessment - the point is that its a trade - Herat, and support, in exchange for 'insert arrangement details here'. There is no strong-arming of them by the British, the point is that this is a deal that Iran proposes. They aren't meekly bowing, they're essentially recognising that they aren't equal, but not being meekly submitting. In fact, if you compared it to a feudal vassal, Iran asking for Herat in exchange for fealty is pretty standard. Compare the two outcomes - A large client state, or a small independent state that you'll have to prop up. One is clearly more advantageous than the other.Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if the deal goes somewhere along the lines of a Anglo-Iranian garrison in Herat for at least 10 years before it is handed over to Iran to garrison on its own, because it is so unexpected.
 
As I said, it is an odd option - but being part of Britain, and Britain refusing to defend it is far more politically contentious at home then doing so with an ally.

They cut Hanover loose at least in part because they couldn't defend it properly, despite it being the ancestral home of their ruling family. And that was defensive fighting on their doorstep, not an aggressive war halfway across the world, which is what you'd need to retrench the Persians in the Caucasus as you suggested. I don't think British political considerations are the main stumbling block here. You certainly aren't kidding about it being an odd option, though - can you name an OTL instance of a country becoming a protectorate for offensive purposes? I might be able to myself, but off the top of my head, I've got nothing. And while I'm no military expert, my political instincts tell me that the weirder and more complicated an arrangement is, the more desperate and unlikely to work it is.

England has easily the largest population in the area, and given time to build infrastructure between India and Persia (i.e. Khyber Pass railways, etc) - Russia simply cannot apply the same number of troops to the region. I admit "Winning the Great Game" is nebulous, but I'd call it. Russia might still get some stuff, but overall, Britain has won there.

That's already OTL, since you must count India for this to actually be true. I'm not convinced it makes a difference. For one, the infrastructure improvements would be quite expensive, and compete for funds with similar projects in India proper. Roberts was appalled at the state of Indian roads and rail. I doubt he'd be any happier about the need to spread that money even further.

And about the troop numbers. The most sophisticated analysis of the Russian threat to India from this (general) period was MacGregor's, and he estimated that the Russians could encircle the Indian frontiers with just shy of 100,000 troops. That's a significant fight to begin with, but extending the sphere of British influence into Persia may actually allow the Russians to bring even more bodies to bear. That extra commitment puts even more pressure on the Indian army that's already about to mutiny. I'm pretty sure the British were never in real danger of losing a defensive war for India, but expanding into the Caucasus or Turkestan seems like a bridge too far. And if they're unwilling to do the former, then again, the Persians lose their incentive to go through with this.

Lastly, there's the politics. Every time Russia expanded further into Central Asia post-Crimea, they scrambled their diplomats to assure everyone that their move was temporary, that they had no designs on India, and that nobody should worry about it. The British complained at each of these moves nevertheless, and the incongruity between the Russian Foreign Ministry's pronouncements and what soldiers did on the ground. One big albatross the British had were accusations of hypocrisy - how could they whine about Russian invasions of Bukhara or Khokand, when they themselves had not too long ago invaded Afghanistan, as well as annexing Sindh and the Punjab? Adding Persia to this collection makes the political situation even more fraught, and far from a deterrent, could easily prompt even more aggressive action from the Tsars, as well as providing the political cover to do it. Far from settling affairs in Central Asia, it risks intensifying the OTL competition, is certain to increase costs in this quarter, and will face periodic disruption based on events in London, because the Liberals hated this kind of forward policymaking in India.

So without a serious effort at reclaiming Persian losses to the Russians, this is a risky and expensive boondoggle. If that effort is made, then it starts the war that most India hands wanted to prevent.

I don't think that is a fair assessment - the point is that its a trade - Herat, and support, in exchange for 'insert arrangement details here'. There is no strong-arming of them by the British, the point is that this is a deal that Iran proposes. They aren't meekly bowing, they're essentially recognising that they aren't equal, but not being meekly submitting.

The point remains that it's a recognition of limited options and limited influence. They certainly can't expect it to result in Britain ponying up on a commitment they'd shirked twice before (the Caucasus thing). And given the tenor of their relations at this point, it'd also be unusual for them to expect this to result in an acquiescence on Herat.

In fact, if you compared it to a feudal vassal, Iran asking for Herat in exchange for fealty is pretty standard. Compare the two outcomes - A large client state, or a small independent state that you'll have to prop up. One is clearly more advantageous than the other.Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if the deal goes somewhere along the lines of a Anglo-Iranian garrison in Herat for at least 10 years before it is handed over to Iran to garrison on its own, because it is so unexpected.

Actually, the other likely outcome is OTL - Herat being claimed by Dost Mohammed, the other British ally in the region. Relative to the Shah, he was a better-known quantity, having been befriended by British agents as well as his own captors during the Anglo-Afghan War. Despite having fought him before (which is also true of the Shah), they had a good rapport and a good read on him. And seeing as the Khyber Pass bordered Afghanistan, not Persia, retaining that friendship was far more important from India's standpoint.
 
Last edited:
Possible but unlikely. If it happens: much more tense Anglo-Russian relationship with the Russian Czars becoming paranoid of being surrounded.

The Russian court was suspicious of the British, but the Czars (especially Nicholas I) thought the hated liberal influences in Britain would slowly die out and leave behind a regime more focused on money and therefore more conservative and more tolerable to them
 
Top