Tensions between America and Iran have been high for some time and I think there were a few times where the US could've gone to war. For the scenario lets say shit goes catastrophically sideways during the Hostage Crisis and suddenly the US and Iran are at war. What happens next? Would the US let its Middle East allies do most of the heavy lifting or would we deal with Tehran ourselves? Would we prop up a democracy after we were done or restore the Shah?
WI: US - Iran War?
- Thread starter ThatOneGuy
- Start date
How did it go with Iraq, remind me? Now remember that most of Iraq is pretty easy terrain and Iran looks like this:
This looks more like "Vietnam on steroids against religious fanatics" than "let's spend time wondering what kind of regime we'll set up after the short and victorious war". Plus, it's a place so easy to invade, look:
From the South, you train your future olympic winners with the combination of biathlon and amphibious landings.
From the North, you have all your logistics ensured by the Soviet Union.
From the East, you have the wonderful and so trustworthy Afghanistan/Pakistan combination.
From the West, you go straight from Saddam to mountains.
Yeah, three times the size of Iraq, over twice the population, no religious sects to exploit, it would be as bad as Vietnam or worse. We could probably fight our way into Tehran, but a few years later we'd find ourselves fighting our way back out again.
Personally, I think it depends how the USA handles the propaganda war. Prior to the Iran-Iraq War, the regime of the Ayatollah was rather unstable and still fraught with internal fighting. The Iran-Iraq War was, in a way, a godsend as it provided a "rally around the flag" effect. Depending how the USA plays it's cards, it's probably more possible the USA helps an internal faction assert control. If people rally around the Ayatollah, Iran is a death trap. If people don't rally and want to fight for freedom - what they see as coming from the USA - it might not be THAT hard to establish a peaceful country.
Then again, the Iraqi people all hated Saddam very much and Iraq still fell into a multi-year civil war. Plus, memories from past USA intervention might not be a good thing.
In the event that the USA captures Tehran, it's most possible that the Shah's son gets installed in power while probably initiating democratic reforms in Iran.
I doubt the USA would do all the heavy lifting by itself - either they get help and assistance from Iraq - which would be super bad for the USA considering, well, his own ambitions and it's not certain Iraq plays ball - or USA could maybe ask a favor from Pakistan. Devoid of all that, they'd probably be forced to naval-invade Iran, which will be even a bigger pain in the ass. It's a toss up. Although I'll surely be following this, because my own TL might end up with war with Iran. Hope no one minds me getting ideas from this, haha.
Then again, the Iraqi people all hated Saddam very much and Iraq still fell into a multi-year civil war. Plus, memories from past USA intervention might not be a good thing.
In the event that the USA captures Tehran, it's most possible that the Shah's son gets installed in power while probably initiating democratic reforms in Iran.
I doubt the USA would do all the heavy lifting by itself - either they get help and assistance from Iraq - which would be super bad for the USA considering, well, his own ambitions and it's not certain Iraq plays ball - or USA could maybe ask a favor from Pakistan. Devoid of all that, they'd probably be forced to naval-invade Iran, which will be even a bigger pain in the ass. It's a toss up. Although I'll surely be following this, because my own TL might end up with war with Iran. Hope no one minds me getting ideas from this, haha.
This takes place after November 4, 1979 and before RR gets in? Just see it as a really bad idea. Cold War was in full swing. America’s military was just getting over VN. What would Russia do? No M1 tanks yet (in service 1979), probably no B-52 bomb trucks (SAC still using them), no F-117, no GPS yet, very early PGMs. IMHO the Iraq invasion was a waste of lives on both sides, this could be that on another level.
Regime change will not be an option given the terrain. At most we could see the occupation of the area around the Straights of Hormuz and maybe closer coordination with the Iraqis to help them occupy Khuzestan and Iran's oil fields.
Back then it wasn't going to happen. The Soviet Union was still alive and invading a direct neighbor would have started WWIII. Operation Eagle Claw was about the most provocative thing that would be considered unless Iran directly attacked U.S. forces or government sponsored attack. Steps such as 'quarantining' Iranian ports may have been possible Deniable special ops may have been possible but an open attack no, that coulkd have made the big ones fly.
No one here is recognizing the elephant in the room. In terms of ethnic composition, Iran most resembles the Soviet Union. Only half of Iran is Persian just like only half of the Soviet Union was Russian. The best way to defeat Iran is to arm the Kurds, and the other ethnic groups (Wikipedia lists more than 15) and have them split from the Persians.
Well if you can start the insurrection without it appearing to come from the U.S. you may start enough turmoil that the USSR would be concerned that the ethnic insurrection into their territory. Then they would invade Iran and the government and associated groups would have to decide which devil they want to align with. They can request Western help or just let the USSR march towards the warm water port they have desired for over a century.
I give this a 25% chance of devolving into a World War, a 50% chance of at least 1/2 of Iran ending up like Afghanistan did in the 80s, and a 25% chance of having Iran split into two countries like Korea and Germany at the time.
I'll be paying close attention to this, since in my current timeline, it's less than a year until the embassy falls.
As for war, it depends on the sort of war that happens. War does not always mean invasion. War can mean the removal of Iran's regime, its oil refineries, its air force, its navy, then leaving it open for Sadam.
If the hostages are murdered, war is all but inevitable, IMVHO. Discussions with the USSR would happen in that sort of situation, with completely deniable deals that somehow end up with minimal American soldiers on the ground. You can't conquer a country that way, but you can eliminate its high tech weapons of war, leaving it open to someone else to invade.
If the hostages are murdered, I suspect that there will be less anti-war activism as long as there's no draft, meaning few boots on the ground..
As for B-52 bomb trucks, they were available in Vietnam; I suspect that, if it did come to war, some would be available.
As for war, it depends on the sort of war that happens. War does not always mean invasion. War can mean the removal of Iran's regime, its oil refineries, its air force, its navy, then leaving it open for Sadam.
If the hostages are murdered, war is all but inevitable, IMVHO. Discussions with the USSR would happen in that sort of situation, with completely deniable deals that somehow end up with minimal American soldiers on the ground. You can't conquer a country that way, but you can eliminate its high tech weapons of war, leaving it open to someone else to invade.
If the hostages are murdered, I suspect that there will be less anti-war activism as long as there's no draft, meaning few boots on the ground..
As for B-52 bomb trucks, they were available in Vietnam; I suspect that, if it did come to war, some would be available.
Well if the hostages are murdered there will be revenge. that is where something like 'Isolating a regime that has proved that it cannot participate in International diplomacy' Mine all harbors, start destroying military bases, freeze foreign assets and demand reparations.
But it wouldn't be called war.
The B-52Ds were in the inventory as 'bomb trucks' and would have been great for mining harbors and wiping out installations after the Iranian Air Force (Which was very good) was knocked out.
With a 1979 PoD? Probably a blockade and maybe a bombing campaign, but no invasion. Iraq would probably feel even more emboldened to attack and the Soviets would definitely meddle in the country, leading to an American feeling of biting off more than they could chew. American activity would decline slowly over time, giving the Ayatollah a victory and fresh popularity at home for successfully resisting "the Great Satan".
If the hostages are murdered, I don't think the current Ayatollah would still be breathing when things stopped going BOOM! However, there might be an even more unified anti-American feeling. (Unless the Ayatollah very quickly says, "We caught the murderers and executed them.)
Furthermore, none of the great powers, nor most other nations, would want the murder of diplomats to be unpunished. Even Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, and their enemies sent the diplomats home. The murder would be beyond the pale.
I imagined another scenario possible is that the Soviet Union might decide to invade and seize parts of northern Iran as they had during World War Two - while the USA may invade and seize parts of the south of the country while supporting rebels in Iran. Depending on what happens, the USA might decide to drive towards Tehran, but we don't know.
I doubt the USSR would seize Tehran in such a scenario, but who knows.
I doubt the USSR would seize Tehran in such a scenario, but who knows.
Hammerbolt
Donor
Afganistan+Iraq+Vietnam x 50 only worse, for one very big reason: the lack of modern technology
Modern US forces enjoy the massive use of high tech: widespread guided munitions of all kinds, night vision equipment, highly advanced recon equipment, drones... despite this, we all know how Iraq and Afganistan went. In 79-82, almost none of these existed.
Modern US forces enjoy the massive use of high tech: widespread guided munitions of all kinds, night vision equipment, highly advanced recon equipment, drones... despite this, we all know how Iraq and Afganistan went. In 79-82, almost none of these existed.
A US-Iranian war in 1980 would have been extremely costly for both sides. The Iranians would pull all their (formerly pro-Shah) generals out of prison just to fight the Yankees, much like they did OTL against Iraq. There would be, however, a strong element of suspicion still present, since many of those generals would have been buddies with American ones in the days before the Islamic Revolution. The Iranian forces would still have a lot of their functioning hardware, since most of that got used up against Iraq, but of course US forces could pretty much trash Iranian units one-on-one. Training, skill, and experience make a great different between the two.
Iraq and the Gulf States would take the chance to resolve some claims and issues with Iran, mostly by stealing back claimed territory while the bulk of Iranian forces are held back in the defense of the motherland. Iraq's case would be trickier, since said claims are on the mainland and would be much easier to defend, so the Iraqis will be allies of opportunity to the Americans.
Morale-wise, though, the Iranians would have an edge over the Americans. The hatred of Americans due to their role in supporting the Shah is still new, and the US would have only gotten out of Vietnam only 5-6 years prior, so the memories of that debacle would be fresh on the American public's minds. The US forces will also be aware of this, so there'd be increased pressure to do better here, something the Iranian regime might take advantage of.
To be honest, the best outcome for the USA (short term) is a combination blockade and aerial/missile bombardment. Basically wreck the Iranian infrastructure and economy, tossing them back into the stone age, and leave the economy in shambles. Needless to say, this only satisfies an immediate desire for revenge, and does little long-term besides a long and painful Iranian rebuilding and creating even more deep-seated grudges against the USA.
An all-out invasion would be insane for anyone to consider. The conventional battles will be brutal, given that the US trained Iranian forces prior to the Revolution, and the Iranians can be somewhat decent on the small unit level, if lacking coordination and strategy on the higher levels. That the Revolutionary Council tossed most of Iran's generals in prison following the takeover would probably help the US in that regard, as those were the most experienced commanders Iran had. But after that, you'd have to deal with the occupation, which would be the bloodiest and most damning part of the war. The USA must take and hold some of the roughest territory possible, fighting not only against a hostile army but a potentially massive insurgency in its controlled territories. While said resistance may not be as organized as it would be today (owing to not having studied the science of insurgency warfare in the 1990s and 2000s), it would certainly be reminiscent of the darker fights in the Vietnam War. Iran in 1980 had ~40M people, and given third world demographics, that means a lot of young men, perfect for military conscription and guerrilla warfare fodder.
The Soviet Union has no love for the Iranian regime, but seeing two of its foes in a fight to the death would be an incredible opportunity. It might decide to stay on the sidelines to loudly condemn the US for its brutality, or it might start secretly selling weapons to the Iranians through Yugoslav and Afghan intermediaries, creating a bigger Afghanistan scenario for the United States to fight.
Iraq and the Gulf States would take the chance to resolve some claims and issues with Iran, mostly by stealing back claimed territory while the bulk of Iranian forces are held back in the defense of the motherland. Iraq's case would be trickier, since said claims are on the mainland and would be much easier to defend, so the Iraqis will be allies of opportunity to the Americans.
Morale-wise, though, the Iranians would have an edge over the Americans. The hatred of Americans due to their role in supporting the Shah is still new, and the US would have only gotten out of Vietnam only 5-6 years prior, so the memories of that debacle would be fresh on the American public's minds. The US forces will also be aware of this, so there'd be increased pressure to do better here, something the Iranian regime might take advantage of.
To be honest, the best outcome for the USA (short term) is a combination blockade and aerial/missile bombardment. Basically wreck the Iranian infrastructure and economy, tossing them back into the stone age, and leave the economy in shambles. Needless to say, this only satisfies an immediate desire for revenge, and does little long-term besides a long and painful Iranian rebuilding and creating even more deep-seated grudges against the USA.
An all-out invasion would be insane for anyone to consider. The conventional battles will be brutal, given that the US trained Iranian forces prior to the Revolution, and the Iranians can be somewhat decent on the small unit level, if lacking coordination and strategy on the higher levels. That the Revolutionary Council tossed most of Iran's generals in prison following the takeover would probably help the US in that regard, as those were the most experienced commanders Iran had. But after that, you'd have to deal with the occupation, which would be the bloodiest and most damning part of the war. The USA must take and hold some of the roughest territory possible, fighting not only against a hostile army but a potentially massive insurgency in its controlled territories. While said resistance may not be as organized as it would be today (owing to not having studied the science of insurgency warfare in the 1990s and 2000s), it would certainly be reminiscent of the darker fights in the Vietnam War. Iran in 1980 had ~40M people, and given third world demographics, that means a lot of young men, perfect for military conscription and guerrilla warfare fodder.
The Soviet Union has no love for the Iranian regime, but seeing two of its foes in a fight to the death would be an incredible opportunity. It might decide to stay on the sidelines to loudly condemn the US for its brutality, or it might start secretly selling weapons to the Iranians through Yugoslav and Afghan intermediaries, creating a bigger Afghanistan scenario for the United States to fight.
Military wise, the US could defeat Iran, but it would be at least twice as costly as Iraq was. Assuming a post invasion occupation similar to Iraq, the US would need double the number of troops as Iraq. Which considering that number was as high as 150,000 at times, would push Iran well into the 200K or 300K mark.