Funny how all powerful the US is at overthrowing a large country and it can not do it to a small island off of Florida. There had to be major momentum in Iran. Supporting a coup is not the same as doing it one's self. Even funnier still, it has not been able to do it, during it's weakest moments in the Iran/Iraq war.Originally Posted by Ordie
Possibility. the revolution in '79 was a broad base coalition, it was not a Islamist only revolution. Leftest were involved and other where involved. Once the Shah was disposed, the Islamist slaughter somewhere between 35,000 - 50,000 leftists.
If the Shah remained it power, it would have been very interesting. Imagine a Israeli/Iranian alliance in the ME.
Also as you brought up, the Cold war was still in full swing.
Another part that people leave out in the propaganda, if the CIA was there so was the KGB. Ever noticed there are almost never mentioned, as if they never existed.
Also, Looks like with Mohammad Mosaddegh, someone forgot to mention the British.
The KGB, unlike the CIA lost its 25 members within the Tudeh and Fedai under torture. That is maybe why they are never mentioned. Kuzichkin largely publicized the failure of the KGB to tame the Tudeh.Another part that people leave out in the propaganda, if the CIA was there so was the KGB. Ever noticed there are almost never mentioned, as if they never existed.
A couple things about the shah.
He was an uncharismatic coward, puppet, and all around tosser.
He was also very very unwell.
So no Islamic Revolution, but you would still have to have a power transition in 80-81. Maybe military and SAVAK junta with royal puppets.
Iraq could have still initiated conflict.
While Iran would be too strong for Iraq(bar power transition problems) to gain control of the shatt al arab, and would have been under prssure from the Kurds backed by Iran, maybe muscling border territory with Kuwait.
You would still have an Iraq seeking nuclear weapons as their deal with the French started in the 70's and possibly better prepared to defend it not distracted by a military at war facing East.
Iran had a deal for nuclear power plants and a turnkey full nuclear cycle started under Nixon I believe.
If Israel couldn't pull off Opera and both countries engaged in diplomacy equal to Iran of today you could have two additional nuclear powers today.
And strong desires from Turkey(then Greece), Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Syria, and Libta to go nuclear by hook or crook.
The Soviets would have probably been far more reluctant to invade Afghanistan.
Israel would have a far less dominant position in the region today.
Soviet Union would have lasted a bit longer at minimum to maybe 2000.
You would still have harsh dictatorships in the region that would eventually be pressured ala South Korea in the 80's to also reform in say circa 1995-2005.
Could be countries much like South Korea in Iraq and Iran just a generation behind.
Would play hell with oil in terms of domestic consumption and excess remaining for international sale.
Worst case scenario a couple regional nations throw nukes at each other.
Flagg, I think Saddam would not have attacked Iran if the Shah was still in power. When the Islamist isolated Iran from the west and east, Saddam figured he had a easy target. With the backing of the Soviet Union and friends and Iran being alone, he would have easily defeated the Iranians.
Concerning the attack by Irak on Iran i agree with Hollis. It was a move against a seemignly weakened state with a weakened and desorganized military by purges and the revolution. Without the revolution and with still the bulk of the military corpus intact, i don't think that Irak would have dared to try it. Moreover, a without revolution Iran would still remain more or less a western friend. So all the reasons for the backing of Irak by Gulf states and the west vanishes.
No credit, no bullets
no bullets, no war.
Agreed.....I reckon Saddam would have looked towards Kuwait to bully and muscle around....for better access to the Gulf and the VERY lucrative big fat patches of oil that straddle both countries. Iran would have clobbered Iraq....so maybe pick on Kuwait with border disputes....cut slices off of Kuwaiti dirt and push for deepwater access....not enough to spark Desert Storm....death by a thousand cuts.
Possibly as leverage to get the US to call off it's Iranian supported Kurd dogs in the north.
I definitely reckon that without a Iran/Iraq War and a totalitarian government in Iran there would be heaps of resources left for nuclear development......there'd be a whole lot of regional ***** measuring going on.
Iran in order to be THE regional superpower, Iraq to counter/deter a potentially VERY powerful Iran, and the rest Saudi, Kuwait(If Iraq had not already made it it's b!tch), Turkey(then Greece), Egypt(then Libya), and Syria all trying in one form or other to devleop or purchase nukes......so maybe better regional stability on the surface...but a nuclear cascade going on under it.
Iran(like Egypt in Yemen in the 60's) had a history of foreign intervention in Oman up through the 70's.
Maybe Iran would have been well placed to promote stability and economic development in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Possibly acting as a bridge(acceptable to the US, unlike today) to run pipelines running Iran/Pak/India....POSSIBLY helping reduce tensions in the subcontinent long term through cooperative energy and economic development deals.
Would Afghanistan exist today as a single entity? or would it have been chopped up to better represent it's various tribal ethnicities? Would Afghanistan with a strong Iran, maybe less crazy Pakistan, and a Soviet Union that never invaded be like a super poor Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia? Possibly divided and developed into multiple buffer states?
I think it would have potential to be positive for Israel in that economic development in the Arab/Persian nations would improve quality of life and standard of living and education with that trillion dollars spent on the Iran/Iraq War spent more productively.
The risk being a higher chance of Israel not being the only nuclear power in the region...which brings it's own threats...so I could see Israel developing a robust nuclear triad and other asymmetric nuclear deterrent options FAR sooner.
The Soviets would have probably pushed VERY, VERY hard to drop a totalitarian western aligned Iranian government, especially one eventually tooled up with 140+ Tomcats, 160+ F16s, hundreds of late model F4s+F5s, 1000+ helos for air mobility and gunship support, thousands of late model tanks, a history of close covert alignment and aggressive penetration testing of Soviet southern borders with the US, and eventually nukes.
I think the Iran/South Korea analogy would be relevant.
The problem for Iran being the domestic insurrection for change would happen at a level of development lower than South Korea's...managing that was difficult for South Korea......it would have been harder for Iran, but doable.....if it survived through the use of an iron fist and a slow transition to a very strong leader democracy along the lines of Singapore...it would have probably suffered a bit like Chile/Argentina with lots of domestic concern over "the missing" and "disappeared" like under Chile's Pinochet and Argentina's Junta.
So in short, I think an Iran that survived an attempt at a revolution hijacked by Islamists it might be best to look to South Korea(probably most relevant model for short to medium term in 80's, 90's lagging a decade), Turkey(for it's strong military influence over politics and largely secular nature), Chile(for "successful totalitarianism", democratic transition and consequences), Argentina(for consequences), and eventually Singapore(long term strong man democracy) IF Iran survived.
Ultimately, I think if Iran survived it would have had hybrid characteristics of South Korea's, Turkey's, and Chile's development and transition in the 80's + 90's, but with a Persian accent....and an anchor for regional stability through it's strategic location, very powerful military, potential nuclear capability, oil wealth, and economic diversification and infrastructure investment....putting it in the upper ranks of potential for achieving regional superpower status.
Actually, I was planning to write about it, but I remember there was a thread about Mohammad Mosaddegh a few years ago. However, I do know the Shah wasn't popular during the 1960's and 1970's because the education, religion, jobs along with SAVAK secret police wasn't helping the situation either though. However, though had the Shah put a lot of effort on those main issues, the revolution could have been would probably never happen.
Pretty much true. The Iran-Iraq War was in due course even despite if the Shah was or wasn't ruling Iran. After the 1975 border clashes with Iraq, it was pretty much in full motion that those nations would head to war at any moment in time and this one of the reasons that Iran went on massive buying spree on top of the line military hardware during the mid-70's like the F-14's, AH-1's, Kidd class destroyers, Shir 1/2 MBT's and other equipment from the United States, United Kingdom, Italy. This is one of the reasons that Iran looked to Israel for ballistic missile development during secretive Project Flower during the mid-70's.
Another question I forgot to mention yesterday, is would happen if Iraq used chemical weapons on Iran when the Shah and successor was in power? Would the United States and it's allies step in and could have used or supply Iran with chemical weapons and if the worst case scenerio used tactical nuclear weapons too since the Shah ruled Iran ws under U.S nuclear umbrella during his time of rule.
If Iran/Iraq War still occurred while Shah or western backed government in Iran existed, the war would have been shorter/sharper and far more likely to be a decisive Iranian victory.
The US wouldn't have wanted a long war with high oil prices to hurt it's own economy as well as prop up the economy of the Soviet Union.
In fact the US would have probably been able to push for greater economic warfare against the Soviet Union by having Iran on side to over produce and surpress oil prices which went a long way in helping collapse the Soviet Union....so the US would have wanted no war or a decisive short one.
The Iran/Iraq war war good for Israel(two enemies bleeding each other white), good for the US(two regional powers not in it's pocket bleeding each other white), and the Soviet Union(war keeps oil prices high and helps the SU with it's biggest export $ earner).
Saddam wasn't a complete idiot.....I don't think he would have gone against an overwhelmingly military powerful nation like Iran.....all those US trained aircrews NOT purged flying latest generation kit backed by quiet US ISTAR/C3I or whatever you want to call it and Iraq's key targets would have been turned into rubble strewn parking lots.
IF it happened, maybe it would have seen Iraq(after it's inevitable defeat) shift away from Soviet kit and towards better relations with the West, particularly France and to a lesser extent UK/Germany/US since they got the bulk of the Iranian contracts....maybe like another Egypt/Israel Camp David Accord by 1990 or so.
And/or Iraq could just pick on Kuwait instead in small manageable/acceptable bites.
No matter what was likely or even just possible...it presents some intriguing possibilities.
Less like India, more like Castro's Cuba. The "non-aligned movement" just means that they are not formally aligned, they can also be heavily pro-western/soviet too.
No way the Stalinist USSR of 1953 wouldn't have their meathooks into Iran if given half the chance.
Given the context of the early 50's cold war (the US was nearing the end of a hot war with a USSR-sponsored country at the time) and that they had no crystal ball, I'm not going to bash them too much.
Yup. That's pretty much exactly my point wrt the coup that installed the Shah.
I would like to however address two things. Why would an Imperial Iran be a better fighting force? Actually in my opinion it would be a far less effective and coherent force, given the lack of popular support. Iraq started to comprehensively attack Iran when Iran was supposed to be a western ally. I would like to point to the India/Pakistan conflict in regards to a East/west Proxies duking it out with the Eastern side coming on top.
Another point. Iran could not produce more than its 4mio bbl/day . In case of doubt ask the emergency nurse. The Nurse in this case was the KSA. Iraq went to war on Kuwait because the KSA cut loose the credit line of Iraq.
Long war? A long war happened and it killed the prices because of two factors.
a. Both economies were mono-income. Their needs in cash were supported by their ability to sell oil. IE the market was flooded. which gave the world the oil price dip post 1981.
b. The USSR was loosing money from its oil industry despite having an almost decade of high prices.
Ultimately the Persian Gulf war was a good deal for every one, except the people of Iran and Iraq and the USSR.
Stalin was a dead man walking by 1953...BTW the most bold and coherent communist moves were made during the Thaw, not Stalin (Indochina and Viet Nam, Cuba, African decolonization support, Warsaw Treaty/Pact).
Last edited by KoTeMoRe; 05-19-2012 at 05:39 AM.
Great thread idea! The mind rells on the posibilities. I am going to have to think about this one and post back late.
![[WDW]Megaraptor's Avatar](image.php?s=517dcf5068246c6a71a861d457f17f3e&u=30547&dateline=1171465900 "[WDW]Megaraptor's Avatar")
I might be more convinced by this if Saddam hadn't chosen in 1991 to go against US trained American aircrews flying latest generation kit backed by overt US C3I, ground warfare, naval support, etc.
I had a bit of a rethink about this.
I can only see both nations becoming more and more like Turkey. Especally Iraq.
As the living standards in Iraq and Iran continued to grow, the rest of the arabic world would be looking towards these nations and thinking..Hmm you know maybe there is a better way of doing things. The amount of pressure these two nations would be able to exert on the rest of the arabic world would be immense.
They would have/they actually do have
1. Wealth
2. Highly educated population
3. Comparable living standards to Eastern Europe
4. Secular legal systems with islamic influences......Not Sharia
5. The largest and best equipped militaries in the world
6. Leadership that would rather kill/assinate any cleric that gets out of line.
7. Irrespective of religion, a person could obtain/aspire to be important. Remember Tariq Aziz is a Christian and was one of the top guys in Iraq
8. Other then Israel and Turkey, they had the best women equality laws.
Without said conflict, and assuming both the Baathists and the Shah stayed on course in what they were doing with regarsd to improving their nations, the extremists who by default rule Saudia Arabia would not have the influence that they now currently do.
Yes their would still be terrorism. The PLO would still be around, but this group is/was first and foremost a liberation movement and not a religious movement.
Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Queda they would not have risen to prominance. The first two because they would not have backers and the 2nd because they would have grown from a nation with limited influence in the Middle East. With a nation quietly supporting them in the 1980's with a lot of influence they would have been a fringe group at best.
Too bad you where not old enough to remember or know a lot about that period of time. If you are not convince, go back and study.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
