The "compromise" could be a couple B52s dropping bombs on a "strategic" locale for the sake of face-saving punishment. Report that the several hundred Iranians killed were at the very least related to the folks who killed the Americans and declare satisfaction.
WI: The Iranian Hostage Situation, was a massacre?
- Thread starter Enigmajones
- Start date
RamscoopRaider
Donor
Heck just hit the Iranian military fairly hard, take out their air force and ensure they can't organize a proper defense
Then let Saddam do our dirty work and kill two birds with one stone, bog down Saddam in Iran and ensure Iran gets hurt worse than OTL and loses the most oil rich regions
Then let Saddam do our dirty work and kill two birds with one stone, bog down Saddam in Iran and ensure Iran gets hurt worse than OTL and loses the most oil rich regions
So Iran could become an earlier Iran-Iraq War. This would probably cement America's alliance with Iraq, and would open the floodgates for Soviet assistance of Iran, possible growth of the communist Party of Iran, and the eventual beginning of a multi-sided civil war, with Iraqi forces occupying Iran with assistance from the new secular Pro-West Government, against the Fundamentalists and the Communists.
You think people will be loyal to the Islamists? (See, this is a question that serves a purpose: if it was deleted, the post would suffer. It's also asking a question to another poster instead of myself, which would be pointless and annoying) That bunch of assholes were the firsts to betray the Revolution. A decapitation strike will send the Ayatholla's government crashing down and the country into civil war. This is a well educated, urban population that shared a lot with the west up to that point, and any chance to overthrow the Islamists would be taken gladly, not some poor colony that was mostly inhabited by peasants who could survive with very little in the wild.
Anyways, occupation wouldn't even be required: Bomb key assets, destabilize the government and watch as the Iranians do the rest.
My thought is that the Iranians really didn't want to give the US such a free shot to pimp-slap their economy into oblivion with a blockade and airstrikes on Kharg Island and Bandar Abbas doing more damage than Saddam ever dreamed of doing to Iranian oil infrastructure in 36 hours.
A lot of American policy wonks hoped it'd be like the Turkish or Greek military coups that'd shuffle around who was in charge but keep them firmly in the Western camp no matter what.
IMO the CIA dropped the ball, punted it into the gutter, and did more to prevent useful negotiations with the revolutionary factions in Iran than anything.
IIRC there was a lot of dashed American hopes of dealing with "moderate" revolutionaries a la Bazargan, Bani-Sadr, et al. The real power wasn't with the secular leaders but in Khomeni's Guardian Council of Islamic scholars.
The big problem was that it was one faction among many that took the hostages and while Khomeni was happy they did as a revolutionary rallying point, there were numerous instances where internal Iranian arguments over who was responsible and in charge of the situation were more dangerous to the hostages than any American (re)action.
For the tl:dr crowd, hostage massacre = US pimp-slap at the very least, or seizure of the key oil structures in Khuzistan.
Frankly, much as I'd have liked for the US to have found folks it could deal with post-Shah, in 1979 NOBODY Islamist, leftist, moderate or otherwise in the Iranian political spectrum wanted to work with the US.
IMO we wasted time negotiating b/c the Iranians wanted nothing we had and had very little to offer us as well.
Our choices were- impose another hated regime with 100,000 troops, quit, or try to support some secular-minded revolutionairies to overthrow the Islamists. Let's see- 80-90% of Iran supported the Islamic revolution.
The folks left from that weren't exactly numerous, influential, armed, organized, or united enough to be more than irritating. We nixed the first option- too expensive and politically toxic. Of the other two, qutting was about the only viable option. The third didn't win us any friends.
A lot of American policy wonks hoped it'd be like the Turkish or Greek military coups that'd shuffle around who was in charge but keep them firmly in the Western camp no matter what.
IMO the CIA dropped the ball, punted it into the gutter, and did more to prevent useful negotiations with the revolutionary factions in Iran than anything.
IIRC there was a lot of dashed American hopes of dealing with "moderate" revolutionaries a la Bazargan, Bani-Sadr, et al. The real power wasn't with the secular leaders but in Khomeni's Guardian Council of Islamic scholars.
The big problem was that it was one faction among many that took the hostages and while Khomeni was happy they did as a revolutionary rallying point, there were numerous instances where internal Iranian arguments over who was responsible and in charge of the situation were more dangerous to the hostages than any American (re)action.
For the tl:dr crowd, hostage massacre = US pimp-slap at the very least, or seizure of the key oil structures in Khuzistan.
Frankly, much as I'd have liked for the US to have found folks it could deal with post-Shah, in 1979 NOBODY Islamist, leftist, moderate or otherwise in the Iranian political spectrum wanted to work with the US.
IMO we wasted time negotiating b/c the Iranians wanted nothing we had and had very little to offer us as well.
Our choices were- impose another hated regime with 100,000 troops, quit, or try to support some secular-minded revolutionairies to overthrow the Islamists. Let's see- 80-90% of Iran supported the Islamic revolution.
The folks left from that weren't exactly numerous, influential, armed, organized, or united enough to be more than irritating. We nixed the first option- too expensive and politically toxic. Of the other two, qutting was about the only viable option. The third didn't win us any friends.
Doing this is a causus belli, even taking the embassy was - it violates all sorts of rules that even the USSR & China abided by. No need to occupy all of Iran, curbstomp the military and occupy the Straits of Hormuz area, the islands in the Gulf, and some of the oil fields near the coast. Blockade the country, no sea traffic no air traffic from anywhere (easy enough to do). Any oil fields not occupied can be hit to put them out of commission without overmuch environmental damage. If you don't occupy large stretches of the country, no "Vietnam".
With no trade, no money coming in, the regime will disintegrate, especially if the USA is careful not to hit population centers. The regime has not had time to establish itself firmly, and while much of the population wanted the Shah out, the Ayotollah was not everyone's first choice.
With no trade, no money coming in, the regime will disintegrate, especially if the USA is careful not to hit population centers. The regime has not had time to establish itself firmly, and while much of the population wanted the Shah out, the Ayotollah was not everyone's first choice.
Well I don't think the Ayatollahs really solidified their power until after/during the hostage crisis, which they were really able to exploit it to get a more theocratic government. If the students simply kill everyone in the embassy, would the more moderate interim government under Mehdi Barazrgan still have resigned? After all now the Ayatollahs can't play themselves up by telling everyone that America can't do anything to get their people back, because they're just so awesome. Now you know for certain that America is going to do something, and odds are it's going to be deadly. Do you really want to be the political faction associated with that end result? This isn't to say that the Ayatollahs still can't use the situation to rally support for themselves, but it might make it harder if the moderates play their cards right.
Cook
Banned
Reality check now. No-one is going to declare war because 52 people are murdered, even murdered on television. There’d certainly be airstrikes, the Iranian navy would probably cease to exist, but that would be it.
I imagine that the USN would be ordered to blockade Iran to stop oil exports, that would result in thousands of oil workers in Khuzestan Province, which was pretty hostile to Khomeini, becoming incredibly restless which would have serious implications for Iran's economy.
There wouldn't have been a full scale invasion because at that time the US military was in no state to invade anyone. The post Vietnam run down had seen budgets slashed, that was one of the reasons why Eagle Claw was such a fiasco. I can remember reading something that when Reagan took office many of the Army's divisions weren't combat ready and USN ships and USAF aircraft were tied up at the dock or grounded because of a lack of spare parts and trained personnel, Carter recognised this himself in the wake of the Iranian Revolution and began to increase the budget significantly even before Reagan came to power, however it took years to get the military into proper shape, witness the cock ups made during the Grenada Invasion.
As for Carter being a wimp, there's a story I've seen on here that when he was briefed on Eagle Claw he asked Charlie Beckwith if the Delta personnel would use knockout gas on any Iranians who got in their way, Beckwith was stunned at this and told him that any Iranians would get "one in the chest and another in the head to be sure." now I find the idea of taking human life abhorrent but if you're a leader in times like this you have to show the other side that you're one stone cold son of a bitch who will not be messed around with. Carter was a decent man but he was in the wrong job at the wrong time.
There wouldn't have been a full scale invasion because at that time the US military was in no state to invade anyone. The post Vietnam run down had seen budgets slashed, that was one of the reasons why Eagle Claw was such a fiasco. I can remember reading something that when Reagan took office many of the Army's divisions weren't combat ready and USN ships and USAF aircraft were tied up at the dock or grounded because of a lack of spare parts and trained personnel, Carter recognised this himself in the wake of the Iranian Revolution and began to increase the budget significantly even before Reagan came to power, however it took years to get the military into proper shape, witness the cock ups made during the Grenada Invasion.
As for Carter being a wimp, there's a story I've seen on here that when he was briefed on Eagle Claw he asked Charlie Beckwith if the Delta personnel would use knockout gas on any Iranians who got in their way, Beckwith was stunned at this and told him that any Iranians would get "one in the chest and another in the head to be sure." now I find the idea of taking human life abhorrent but if you're a leader in times like this you have to show the other side that you're one stone cold son of a bitch who will not be messed around with. Carter was a decent man but he was in the wrong job at the wrong time.
Last edited:
HeavyWeaponsGuy
Banned
Wow this whole thread is getting a little depressing...
The approval rating of the Shah was effectively zero at the end of the Revolution.
If you consider that early on in the Revolution there was a huge amount of both leftism and pro-democracy advocates involved in the Revolution, you quickly come to realize that a lot of Iranians A. hated the Shah and B. there is a tailor-made group of people ready to be another government if the regime changes.
You guys are both absurd.
Death is advocating a solution that nobody, let alone Jimmy Carter the US president least inclined to overlook human rights violations by US allies is going to do. If Carter got any say in a new Iranian government you can bet dollars for donuts he'll go for oh I don't know, the overwhelmingly large amount of Iranians who do actually want a Western-style democracy.
And no, we wouldn't occupy Iran, believe it or not the US military is not full of drooling imbeciles, they'd give the air force a list of targets in Khuzestan (like... oh I don't know, 80% of Iran's oil refineries) and tell them to go crazy. We'd burn Iran with economic warfare, we could royally wreck the country and it wouldn't even require occupying an inch of Iranian soil to do it.
Khomeini and co. would be discredited to the rest of the Mideast, Iran's enemies would start pouring into their US embassies by the truckload asking us for guns and money, and we'd give them more than they knew what to do with it!
Actually a lot of SAVAK operatives beat feet and left the country, the Revolutionaries purged them AND the army for their perceived loyalties to the Shah.
This isn't a semi-credible government, this was one that had no popular support by the end, and a US intervention will only make it worse, because it will confirm what most of the Shah's critics know already: that he pretty much dances to Washington's tune, it doesn't help that the man just got out of a liver surgery (he was actually overthrown while he was out of Iran, in the United States, getting his surgery) and likely would be in no real condition to come back and fight for his throne.
The United States is pragmatic, the CIA and other groups who spearhead regime changes are at least a reasonably thoughtful bunch, the writing is already on the wall, Pahlavi won't come back at the end of American bayonets.
Oh really? The way Germans rose up and overthrew the Nazis when their country was bombed? Or the way the North Vietnamese did?
Killing people rarely endears their friends and relatives to your cause. Iranians are a liberal people with a moderate tradition of Islam, I will give you that.
But really, this isn't a situation where someone goes in and kicks the whole rotting structure down, sure there are plenty of people who would benefit from a weaker Iranian presence, like Balochi and Kurdish separatists. Iran was vulnerable internally, but the regime had more lasting power than people ever gave it credit for. Especially when it was provided with a good old-fashioned "REPEL THE INVADER!" cause to rally the Iranian masses behind, American bombs won't be different from Iraqi ones in doing that.
When one is invaded by an outside force, especially in so politically anti-American of an atmosphere as Revolutionary Iran, the kneejerk reaction is going to be to rally round the (Iranian) flag to repel the foreign invaders, or in other words, exactly the same thing as what happened when Iraq invaded Iran, it provides a nice cover to bring some fence-sitters over to your side while ruthlessly wiping out those who aren't going to play. In most cases, Khomeini's support would increase not the other way around because of an American invasion.
The approval rating of the Shah was effectively zero at the end of the Revolution.
If you consider that early on in the Revolution there was a huge amount of both leftism and pro-democracy advocates involved in the Revolution, you quickly come to realize that a lot of Iranians A. hated the Shah and B. there is a tailor-made group of people ready to be another government if the regime changes.
You guys are both absurd.
Death is advocating a solution that nobody, let alone Jimmy Carter the US president least inclined to overlook human rights violations by US allies is going to do. If Carter got any say in a new Iranian government you can bet dollars for donuts he'll go for oh I don't know, the overwhelmingly large amount of Iranians who do actually want a Western-style democracy.
And no, we wouldn't occupy Iran, believe it or not the US military is not full of drooling imbeciles, they'd give the air force a list of targets in Khuzestan (like... oh I don't know, 80% of Iran's oil refineries) and tell them to go crazy. We'd burn Iran with economic warfare, we could royally wreck the country and it wouldn't even require occupying an inch of Iranian soil to do it.
Khomeini and co. would be discredited to the rest of the Mideast, Iran's enemies would start pouring into their US embassies by the truckload asking us for guns and money, and we'd give them more than they knew what to do with it!
Actually a lot of SAVAK operatives beat feet and left the country, the Revolutionaries purged them AND the army for their perceived loyalties to the Shah.
This isn't a semi-credible government, this was one that had no popular support by the end, and a US intervention will only make it worse, because it will confirm what most of the Shah's critics know already: that he pretty much dances to Washington's tune, it doesn't help that the man just got out of a liver surgery (he was actually overthrown while he was out of Iran, in the United States, getting his surgery) and likely would be in no real condition to come back and fight for his throne.
The United States is pragmatic, the CIA and other groups who spearhead regime changes are at least a reasonably thoughtful bunch, the writing is already on the wall, Pahlavi won't come back at the end of American bayonets.
Oh really? The way Germans rose up and overthrew the Nazis when their country was bombed? Or the way the North Vietnamese did?
Killing people rarely endears their friends and relatives to your cause. Iranians are a liberal people with a moderate tradition of Islam, I will give you that.
But really, this isn't a situation where someone goes in and kicks the whole rotting structure down, sure there are plenty of people who would benefit from a weaker Iranian presence, like Balochi and Kurdish separatists. Iran was vulnerable internally, but the regime had more lasting power than people ever gave it credit for. Especially when it was provided with a good old-fashioned "REPEL THE INVADER!" cause to rally the Iranian masses behind, American bombs won't be different from Iraqi ones in doing that.
When one is invaded by an outside force, especially in so politically anti-American of an atmosphere as Revolutionary Iran, the kneejerk reaction is going to be to rally round the (Iranian) flag to repel the foreign invaders, or in other words, exactly the same thing as what happened when Iraq invaded Iran, it provides a nice cover to bring some fence-sitters over to your side while ruthlessly wiping out those who aren't going to play. In most cases, Khomeini's support would increase not the other way around because of an American invasion.
Last edited:
MacCaulay
Banned
*steps in some sort of liquid* God...what's this all over the floor?
Oh...it's your heart. *hands ANTIcarrot a mop* It's bleeding on my floor. FIX IT.
I get what you're saying: like the undersecretary of economics who's in charge of making sure American companies can get through commercial laws quicker in Iran, who in his spare time rapes Iranian babies. Or the janitor who secretly drown homeless people in his bucket, right?
HeavyWeaponsGuy
Banned
Huh, glad I'm not the only person who felt that way, you put it so much more... eloquently than I ever could Sir MacCaulay, I owe you gratitude and jealously in no particular order.
Yeah, the right-hand men of the Shah, whether SAVAK or others like the Imperial Guard, were generally pretty brutal if you were someone the regime perceived as an obstacle.
I don't really see an instance, in a completely innocuous OP speculating the consequences of an outright massacre of US embassy staff as opposed to hostages where the phrase: "I support the Shah in crossing any and all moral boundaries and brutalizing his own people in order to stay in power" shows up.
It strikes me as flinging a false accusation. The OP has not shown himself to be an apologist for the Shah's crimes against the Iranian people, moderation (as in toning down, not calling Ian in
) is definitely in order.tallthinkev
Donor
If those in charge knew what was going to happen and didn't stop it that would be one thing, if they didn't the only real choice they would have is a trial and a decent hanging.
Guys, okay, so what if we support Iranian enemies?
For one, okay, many say just divide and conquer. Well, the CIA were not idiots, but on the other hand, they refused to do that with left factions globally, even when they were against the Soviet Union. Why would this be any different? If anything, the refusal to work with left factions, who are going to be the only options outside of Islamists, will be increased because they fear the Soviet Union.
For Iraq, this is Saddam, who has possibly one of the most incompetent militaries imaginable. Why would he be any more successful than OTL, when Iran with freaking HUMAN WAVE CHARGES was able to beat him? Are you going to give him new generals? Because otherwise, it doesn't matter how much equipment you give his army if it's completely incompetent. Again, same situation with South Vietnam in regards to giving them military equipment, it doesn't matter what you give them if they're incapable of properly utilizing it.
EDIT: I do apologize for the whole US invades Iran thing, that was really stupid on my part in hindsight.
For one, okay, many say just divide and conquer. Well, the CIA were not idiots, but on the other hand, they refused to do that with left factions globally, even when they were against the Soviet Union. Why would this be any different? If anything, the refusal to work with left factions, who are going to be the only options outside of Islamists, will be increased because they fear the Soviet Union.
For Iraq, this is Saddam, who has possibly one of the most incompetent militaries imaginable. Why would he be any more successful than OTL, when Iran with freaking HUMAN WAVE CHARGES was able to beat him? Are you going to give him new generals? Because otherwise, it doesn't matter how much equipment you give his army if it's completely incompetent. Again, same situation with South Vietnam in regards to giving them military equipment, it doesn't matter what you give them if they're incapable of properly utilizing it.
EDIT: I do apologize for the whole US invades Iran thing, that was really stupid on my part in hindsight.
RamscoopRaider
Donor
Who needs Saddam to do better, just make Iran do worse
The Iranian navy was better than the Iraqi, sink it and Iran cannot blockade Iraq
The Iranian air force was better, wreck it on the ground, and Iraq can use CAS and tactical bombing rather than relying on Scuds
This alone tilts things pretty far in favor of Iraq, not sure how far, but in a stalemate like this every bit helps
The Iranian navy was better than the Iraqi, sink it and Iran cannot blockade Iraq
The Iranian air force was better, wreck it on the ground, and Iraq can use CAS and tactical bombing rather than relying on Scuds
This alone tilts things pretty far in favor of Iraq, not sure how far, but in a stalemate like this every bit helps
While this is perhaps true, whose to say the Soviets won't give the Iranians weapons in order to distract the US?
Also, navy or not, Iran WILL find a way to disrupt oil supplies if things go badly for them on the conventional front. Expect massive amounts of gurriella warfare to center on insuring that oil supplies do not flow to the United States, causing massive economic damage.
Also, navy or not, Iran WILL find a way to disrupt oil supplies if things go badly for them on the conventional front. Expect massive amounts of gurriella warfare to center on insuring that oil supplies do not flow to the United States, causing massive economic damage.
RamscoopRaider
Donor
The US does not get more than a small fraction (<5%) of their oil from either of the two
They tried cutting off oil to the US OTL, it did not work
The Soviets did not really like Iran, and vice versa, forty years before this the USSR INVADED Iran, the Soviets will give some stuff to Iran, but not that much, they preferred Iraq and Saddam (Secular dictatorship with lots of Socialist trappings>Islamic Theocracy) and would probably give Saddam more, or just sell it to Saddam, the USSR needed foreign exchange and Iraq had money (Iran did not)
I'd think it would be more a 'we demand this, or else we'll do this" situation... basically, the USA will demand that Iran turn over every one of those students who took part in the atrocity, and if they don't, the US will strike at them; bombing raids, naval strikes at what's left of Iran's navy, etc. We might even get Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to grant us air force basing rights, since they were rather horrified of the whole Islamic revolution across the Gulf...
HeavyWeaponsGuy
Banned
Guys, okay, so what if we support Iranian enemies?
For one, okay, many say just divide and conquer. Well, the CIA were not idiots, but on the other hand, they refused to do that with left factions globally, even when they were against the Soviet Union. Why would this be any different? If anything, the refusal to work with left factions, who are going to be the only options outside of Islamists, will be increased because they fear the Soviet Union.
For Iraq, this is Saddam, who has possibly one of the most incompetent militaries imaginable. Why would he be any more successful than OTL, when Iran with freaking HUMAN WAVE CHARGES was able to beat him? Are you going to give him new generals? Because otherwise, it doesn't matter how much equipment you give his army if it's completely incompetent. Again, same situation with South Vietnam in regards to giving them military equipment, it doesn't matter what you give them if they're incapable of properly utilizing it.
EDIT: I do apologize for the whole US invades Iran thing, that was really stupid on my part in hindsight.
Oh really? We "never" supported leftists? The Khmer Rouge don't count there?
In the early months of the Iran-Iraq War a lot of observers thought the war would be over in months.
Because Saddam had not adequately crushed the Iranian airforce (and with his resources it was impossible), and because the Arabs of Khuzestan did not rise up.
The US involving itself against Iran and taking the gloves off to knock out what remains of the Imperial Air Force and the navy will give Saddam all the chance he needs.
Also, Iran didn't win the war, as all offensives by Iran into Iraq were repulsed, nor did it halt the Iraqi offensive with human wave attacks, that can be credited primarily to the remnants of the Iranian airforce.