WI Soviet embassy in Iran held hostage in 1979-'81 instead of the US embassy?

What if both embassies were overrun and while Carter was debating what to do the Russians set up a rescue operation for both embassies.
Say they are somewhat successful and 80% of the Russian hostages survive and 95% of the Americans (the Iranians were not expecting anything with the Americans and their guard was down).
How would the US government react when Russia just made Carter look like he didn't have the balls to confront Iran and get the hostages back.

Such was the nature of Cold War rivarly that I find it hard to imagine one side doing that kind of a favour for the other, even as an act of passive-aggressive, backhanded, faux-generosity. More likely, the USSR would just get their people out, and sit back and wallow in the USA frustration at not being able to do the same.

That said, if it DID happen, yes, it would probably be a pretty major embarrassment for Carter, though his Republican enemies might be a little tempered in their response, for fear of appearing to praise a Soviet operation. They would probably stop just short of adding "like the Russians did!!" when bellowing out their list of what actions they think Carter should have undertaken.
 
Hmm. I guess this represents an advantage for me having been around back then. Because militants DID ASSAULT AND OCCUPY the Soviet Embassy in Tehran!:eek: However, these militants were mostly Afghan nationals acting in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The response by the Iranians to this attack shows a good example the level of contempt nations have towards the USA versus the level of fear they have towards the USSR/Russia.

Khomenei didn't hesitate for a second to send in the Iranian Army (the Revolutionary Guards were little more than a twinkle in his jaundiced eye at this point) to storm the Soviet Embassy and rapidly drive the Afghans out of the compound. The Afghans fled most rapidly once they realized that they didn't have the support of the mullahs.

So, pretty much, no. The Iranians themselves would never assault the Soviet Embassy. Khomenei was a master at knowing just how far he could push the USA (and not one step further) without unleashing the B-52s.:mad:

But it was no secret that as far as Soviet foreign service personnel were concerned, they were expendable. No Soviet hostages. Just look at what happened in Somalia, and this would be Leonid Brezhnev, the guy who sent in the tanks in response to timid criticism from Czechoslovakia. Far better for the Russians to use the opportunity to show what happens when you try to insult the Russian Bear.

Not to mention, as others have said here, that the USSR will have little difficulty in curbstomping Iran. The circumstances on the ground in Iran are tough for an invader, but not nearly as bad as in Afghanistan. Plus far better LOCs and logistics. Khomenei was an abyss of hatred, but he wasn't stupid.
 
Last edited:
Such was the nature of Cold War rivarly that I find it hard to imagine one side doing that kind of a favour for the other, even as an act of passive-aggressive, backhanded, faux-generosity. More likely, the USSR would just get their people out, and sit back and wallow in the USA frustration at not being able to do the same.

That said, if it DID happen, yes, it would probably be a pretty major embarrassment for Carter, though his Republican enemies might be a little tempered in their response, for fear of appearing to praise a Soviet operation. They would probably stop just short of adding "like the Russians did!!" when bellowing out their list of what actions they think Carter should have undertaken.

The Republicans would have to walk a fine line to claim Carter was being soft on the US enemies, but not coming off as pro-USSR.

In 1979 the USSR was still enemy #1 to most Americans, so the response would probably be different than today where anti-Obama people go to the level of praising Putin.

If I was a hostage I would probably want Israel to try to rescue me, they don't worry about public opinion like the US, but put more emphasis on rescuing the hostages alive than the Russians.
 
PPaul wrote:

1979 the USSR was still enemy #1 to most Americans, so the response would probably be different than today where anti-Obama people go to the level of praising Putin.

Yeah, it's funny to read things by anti-American leftists who praise Putin for "battling against hyperpower hegemony and building a new world where all voices can be heard" and then turn to American right-wingers who hail him as a "great Christian who really knows how to stomp out these ragheaded ethnic maggots."
 
The Republicans would have to walk a fine line to claim Carter was being soft on the US enemies, but not coming off as pro-USSR.

In 1979 the USSR was still enemy #1 to most Americans, so the response would probably be different than today where anti-Obama people go to the level of praising Putin.

I'm not sure about that. Remember, while by this point in time it was seriously weakening and near-dead, by the late 1970's, the USA still had the legacy of detente and the period of relaxed (relaxed, mind, not absent) Soviet-American tensions that this represented. And detente had been ushered in by Nixon, a known Cold Warrior and staunch opponent of communism. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the breakdown of disarmament talks, among other things, during the Carter Administration more or less killed off detente, but it wasn't fully dead yet. Something like this could have really given Soviet-American cooperation a shot in the arm.

I don't really think it would be a question of political affiliations: the entire American public wanted the hostages saved and the Soviets could very well have cultivated this sentiment with a few statements about solidarity with the United States.
 
That would be something indeed.
Joint US-Soviet cooperation on a rescue mission?

This kind of thing could actually very easily reverse the breakdown in Soviet-American relations. It's not guaranteed, mind, Afghanistan could still be a spoiler issue to any improved relations, but this is a big potential window for cooperation.
 
That would be something indeed.
Joint US-Soviet cooperation on a rescue mission?
The US can't even carry out a joint Army-Air Force operation. I think the addition of the Soviets involved might seriously complicate the parameters of the operation.

@Usertron, very interesting, didn't know that actually happened irl.
 
It would lead to a decisive split within the former anti-Pahlavi opposition. Their anti-Shah - and implicitly, anti-American - position more or less united the national-democrats, the Communists, the Mojahedin/Fedayeen and the religious forces. But a move against the Soviet Union would break off the Tudeh Party, probably the Marxist Fedayeen and possibly even the Mojahedin (their ideology was closer to Arab Socialism than to Islamism, and the Soviets were close to Syria and Iraq back then) from the rest.

But with the Soviets already involved in Afghanistan, would they also make a move into Iran? I guess more likely they would arm the Fedayeen or the Mojahedin, which would trigger off a civil war. In OTL, Khomeini wasn't on best terms with the Afghan mudjaheddin, for they were Sunni Muslims and backed by the USA and Pakistan. But with the atheist Soviets as a common enemy, maybe they would cooperate.
 
The US can't even carry out a joint Army-Air Force operation. I think the addition of the Soviets involved might seriously complicate the parameters of the operation. (1)

@Usertron, very interesting, didn't know that actually happened irl. (2)

1) The US military was a mess back then. And even with the Carter buildup in the last 18 months of his administration, plus Reagan's taking that and turning it up to an eleven, didn't allow for the warts to be exposed regarding inter-service cooperation. It took Grenada to do that. And even all the way to Panama they had to mandate that operation to be an All Army show to insure no communication and cooperation difficulties. In Gulf War I, they solved the problem by assigning the Marines to a diversionary operation.

Things are still bad in that arena, but not so bad as they were in 1979.

2) It was a story of one day, in the midst of the hostages, the Soviet invasion of A-Stan, and the Iran-Iraq War. Its hardly surprising that the story of the assault on the Tehran Soviet Embassy has been forgotten.

Just as its been forgotten that the Soviets practiced Vietnam War-style "Free Fire Zones" on NE Iran, where Afghan refugee camps (and Mujah bases) were located. As I've said here and elsewhere, with what the mullahs were pulling with the hostages, pissing on every law of diplomacy established since the Tripolitan Wars, Khomenei & Co left themselves with nobody's shoulder to cry on but Allah's:p And Allah doesn't like being told whose side he's on:mad:
 
Hmm. I guess this represents an advantage for me having been around back then. Because militants DID ASSAULT AND OCCUPY the Soviet Embassy in Tehran!:eek: However, these militants were mostly Afghan nationals acting in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The response by the Iranians to this attack shows a good example the level of contempt nations have towards the USA versus the level of fear they have towards the USSR/Russia.

Khomenei didn't hesitate for a second to send in the Iranian Army (the Revolutionary Guards were little more than a twinkle in his jaundiced eye at this point) to storm the Soviet Embassy and rapidly drive the Afghans out of the compound. The Afghans fled most rapidly once they realized that they didn't have the support of the mullahs....

Was that this incident in 1988?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Back when the takeover happened a reporter asked the Soviet Foreign Ministry this question about a week after it started.

He said something to the effect that if it had been the Soviet Embassy it would be back in Soviet control already.

It is worth remembering that, at the time, the USSR shared around 500 miles of land border and the Caspian Sea shoreline with Iran. It is 60 miles from the Caspian Sea shoreline to downtown Tehran. It is also worth considering tht the Iranian military was in utter disarray, with senior officers either on the run or being tortured/executed.

The Hostages might have been killed in the process, the Soviets were never very good at subtle, but the positive is the USSR would finally have its warm water port.

Godzilla vs. Bambi
 

I freely admit my own memories of the event stretch back some 35 years, but I would have sworn that the incident I recalled was over the invasion of Afghanistan, not Scud missile attacks on Iran.

Back when the takeover happened a reporter asked the Soviet Foreign Ministry this question about a week after it started.

He said something to the effect that if it had been the Soviet Embassy it would be back in Soviet control already.

It is worth remembering that, at the time, the USSR shared around 500 miles of land border and the Caspian Sea shoreline with Iran. It is 60 miles from the Caspian Sea shoreline to downtown Tehran.

All true, except that IIRC the Iranian Caspian Sea shoreline has no ports worthy of the name, and the Caspian Sea is not a body of water that the Soviets have spent a lot of time building up. While the NE of Iran represents bad LOCs for the Soviets, NW Iran is on the highly developed Soviet Caucasus region. Its the inevitable invasion route for the USSR into Iran.

It is also worth considering that the Iranian military was in utter disarray, with senior officers either on the run or being tortured/executed.

The status of the Iranian military was irrelevant. Its how much the warts of the Soviet Army would have shown up in such an operation. They would have been acting in the largest military operation the USSR had seen since WWII.:eek:

The Hostages might have been killed in the process, the Soviets were never very good at subtle, but the positive is the USSR would finally have its warm water port.

The Soviets couldn't care less about their hostages. They'd care about seeing them avenged. The USSR having its own warm water port, on the Strait of Hormuz, would be a game changer.

Godzilla vs. Bambi

Meh. Godzilla vs. the hunters who shot Bambi's mother:(
 
Last edited:
The starting point is that the Soviets will consider the hostages expendable, so while they may attempt some sort of rescue attempt, the fact that some (or all) of the hostages might die won't stop them. On the other hand, if any of the hostages die the Russians will put that on the Iranians and demand much much more than a pound of flesh in return. IMHO the Ayatollah, and those around him, were not stupid. They knew that there was only so far the Americans would go at least under Carter. Once Reagan got elected and his response was less predictable the hostages were released. If the students did invade the Soviet embassy and take hostages instead of the Americans, the Iranian government/Ayatollah would let the students know in no uncertain terms that the immediate release of the hostages was required.

Another point is that it is highly likely that the security forces at the Soviet embassy, once the students broke in to the embassy grounds, would be instructed to use deadly force on them, which probably would have stopped them. Since an embassy is legally foreign territory, and since (in this case) the host government has failed in its duty to protect it, the Russians would be within their rights under international law and diplomatic usage.

As far as the US and USSR cooperating, I doubt that happening. The Soviets are certainly going to want more rapid and severe action than Carter would put up with - and as noted I think even in the dual embassy scenario the Russians would be let go promptly, not the Americans.
Didn't Reagan make a deal with Iran to make them keep the hostages for him to win the election?
 
There's been no reliable proof of that. The Iranians were afraid of what Reagan would do if he won, and after the election, Carter's negotiators made it clear to the Iranians that they could expect a very tougher customer if there was no deal by 20 Jan 1981.
 
Top