WI: Soviet Union doesn't leave Northern Iran in 1946

Papa Stalin got fooled into thinking Iran would deliver oil if he withdrew from Northern Iran. What would happen if he instead militarily protected People's Republic of Azerbaijan and Republic of Mohabad?
 
Well, the Azeri puppet state would have to be incorporated into the USSR eventually, you know, cause there's already an Azeri SSR. This would anger Iran even more, and I'd take longer for the two nations to have good relations again. USSR could start using Iraq as a substitute for Iran, and this leads to an interesting turn from our timeline. More specifically the Iranian Revolution, Iran-Iraq War and Gulf War. The US would have no one to side with, as the former (Iran) is fervently opposed to America in any form, while to latter is a Soviet ally. The war would probably end with a pyrrhic Iraqi victory, though Hussein wouldn't achieve much on the negotiating table. The US would also be more restricted in it's reaction to Iraq taking Kuwait. They'd probably try to solve the crisis through negotiation, and if there was conflict, US forces could take more casualties due to the Soviets being invested in Iraq heavily. Saddam would still be forced to leave Kuwait though, just with no repercussions. No matter if it'd be the USSR or Russian Federation that exists in 2003, Bush wouldn't dare to invade Iraq, therefore preventing it's destruction and subsequently rise of ISIS (in Iraq at least). ISIS might not exist in Syria either, as Iraq, being more friendly to Syria in this timeline due to a common ally, would intervene in the civil war. Unlike Iran, Iraq and Syria share a border so Iraq could directly deploy it's military and destroy the FSA much quicker.
In Soviet interior politics, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict would still occur, but it's more likely the Kremlin would transfer the region to the Armenian SSR due to Azerbaijan being much larger than in our timeline. What's more important is that the USSR would be able to extend its influence much farther south, by having airbases in this territory. As another note, the Soviet war in Afghanistan could last longer, with Iraqi support, lasting to at least the mid-90s, depending how the USSR itself does.

As for the Kurdish Republic, it could either collapse quickly and be reincorporated, or be a puppet state for the USSR. If they are the latter, Iraqi Kurds could secede and join it during the 1968 coup. The Baathists would eventually have to recognise them to not risk war with the Soviets.
 
Well, American-Iranian relations went down the toliet because of the Americans' involvement in the coup when installing the Shah (Operation Ajax I think).

Here, I reckon the Americans would probably find it too risky to let the British go through with the coup so they might just have the British focus on the oil they do have.
 
That's very hard to believe.

Two posts of mine from a thread a few months ago at https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-or-soviet-satellite-in-northern-iran.425126/

(1) It has to be remembered that Stalin got--or thought he got--something in return for his withdrawal of support for the "Azerbaijan People's Government": a favorable oil deal with Prime Minister Qavam. Unfortunately for Stalin, the deal was contingent on approval by the Majlis that was to be elected--which as it turned out rejected it.

It has been argued that Qavam's deal was not a sellout but really a clever move on Qavam's part because he supposedly knew that no Majlis would ratify the agreement. (The Fifteenth Majlis in 1947 rejected it overwhelmingly.) Gholam Reza Afkhami, in his *The Life and Times of the Shah*, p. 108, expresses skepticism about the view that Qavam "played the game skillfully enough to dupe Stalin and Molotov. The proposition makes a hero of Qavam, but it is a moot claim at best. There was no evidence at the time to point to such a game..." http://books.google.com/books?id=M9xbJQyFMe8C&pg=PA108

***

(2) I think Iran took the position that only a newly elected Majlis could decide on ratification--and that elections for a new Majlis could not be held until the Soviet troops withdrew. Qavam may have assured Stalin (sincerely or otherwise) that he would use his influence to see that the new Majlis ratified it, and Stalin may have believed this--or Stalin might have thought that in any event the *possibility* of future ratification *plus* the pressure the Western powers were exerting was enough reason to withdraw the troops.

Qavam's party the Democrats, did win the election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_legislative_election,_1947 including all the seats in Teheran, but in the first place they were not as successful in the provinces where "local powers had always had a greater effect on election outcomes" https://books.google.com/books?id=M9xbJQyFMe8C&pg=PA105 and in the second place even members who had supported Qavam rebelled against the oil deal.

Also, to mollify the Soviets, Qavam had agreed to the appointment of three Tudeh party members to his cabinet--to the health, commerce, and education portfolios. https://books.google.com/books?id=M9xbJQyFMe8C&pg=PA100 Under pressure from the military and the Shah, he later dismissed them. https://books.google.com/books?id=M9xbJQyFMe8C&pg=PA103
 
Well, the Azeri puppet state would have to be incorporated into the USSR eventually, you know, cause there's already an Azeri SSR. This would anger Iran even more, and I'd take longer for the two nations to have good relations again. USSR could start using Iraq as a substitute for Iran, and this leads to an interesting turn from our timeline. More specifically the Iranian Revolution, Iran-Iraq War and Gulf War. The US would have no one to side with, as the former (Iran) is fervently opposed to America in any form, while to latter is a Soviet ally.

You're assuming that Iran and Iraq in 1979 and the 1980's would have more or less the same kinds of governments and the same war they had in OTL That is highly questionable. Both the rise of Saddam Hussein and the triumph of Khomeini were the product of many contingent developments, and the Soviet outright annexation of Iranian territory is a *drastic* departure from OTL which is going to have ripple effects across the Middle East (and elsewhere--if allowed to stand, it could be enough to defeat Truman in 1948!) and *especially* in Iranian politics.
 
Last edited:
You're assuming that Iran and Iraq in 1979 and the 1980's would have more or less the same kinds of governments and the same war they had in OTL That is highly questionable. Both the rise of Saddam Hussein and the triumph of Khomeini were the product of many contingent developments, and the Soviet outright annexation of Iranian territory is a *drastic* departure from OTL which is going to have ripple effects across the Middle East (and elsewhere--if allowed to stand, it could be enough to defeat Truman in 1948!) and *especially* in Iranian politics.
I wonder how this will effect the situation in Israel and Palestine at the time?
 
Well, the Azeri puppet state would have to be incorporated into the USSR eventually, you know, cause there's already an Azeri SSR. This would anger Iran even more, and I'd take longer for the two nations to have good relations again. USSR could start using Iraq as a substitute for Iran, and this leads to an interesting turn from our timeline. More specifically the Iranian Revolution, Iran-Iraq War and Gulf War. The US would have no one to side with, as the former (Iran) is fervently opposed to America in any form, while to latter is a Soviet ally. The war would probably end with a pyrrhic Iraqi victory, though Hussein wouldn't achieve much on the negotiating table. The US would also be more restricted in it's reaction to Iraq taking Kuwait. They'd probably try to solve the crisis through negotiation, and if there was conflict, US forces could take more casualties due to the Soviets being invested in Iraq heavily. Saddam would still be forced to leave Kuwait though, just with no repercussions. No matter if it'd be the USSR or Russian Federation that exists in 2003, Bush wouldn't dare to invade Iraq, therefore preventing it's destruction and subsequently rise of ISIS (in Iraq at least). ISIS might not exist in Syria either, as Iraq, being more friendly to Syria in this timeline due to a common ally, would intervene in the civil war. Unlike Iran, Iraq and Syria share a border so Iraq could directly deploy it's military and destroy the FSA much quicker.
In Soviet interior politics, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict would still occur, but it's more likely the Kremlin would transfer the region to the Armenian SSR due to Azerbaijan being much larger than in our timeline. What's more important is that the USSR would be able to extend its influence much farther south, by having airbases in this territory. As another note, the Soviet war in Afghanistan could last longer, with Iraqi support, lasting to at least the mid-90s, depending how the USSR itself does.

As for the Kurdish Republic, it could either collapse quickly and be reincorporated, or be a puppet state for the USSR. If they are the latter, Iraqi Kurds could secede and join it during the 1968 coup. The Baathists would eventually have to recognise them to not risk war with the Soviets.
What Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and what invasion of Kuwait by Iraq? Massive amount of butterflies over 50 years and especially since it’s the same region.
 
There is a PDF file that would shed some more light on the Soviet occupation of northern Iran called, "Soviet Military Intervention in Iran, 1920-1946", unfortunately the link to get said file is broken and cannot be done.
 
Top