1979, Iranian students go into BOTH the American and Soviet embassies?

[James G]

An invasion by students into the Soviet embassy in Tehran was something planned to happen as well as the US compound but it was decided not to. Like with the American embassy, the idea was only to go in and then leave. There was no aim to create the hostage crisis which occurred.

What if the students weren't dissuaded and did take the Soviet embassy? How do they react in Moscow? Could they, would they, go full Spetsnaz & Airborne on Tehran - this was before they did just that to Kabul, quite the successful operation - or do what the Americans did and look for a non-violent solution?

Or, does this all cause a rather large war?

[lordroel]

Apr 30, 2019 18:49:55 GMT James G said:

An invasion by students into the Soviet embassy in Tehran was something planned to happen as well as the US compound but it was decided not to. Like with the American embassy, the idea was only to go in and then leave. There was no aim to create the hostage crisis which occurred.

What if the students weren't dissuaded and did take the Soviet embassy? How do they react in Moscow? Could they, would they, go full Spetsnaz & Airborne on Tehran - this was before they did just that to Kabul, quite the successful operation - or do what the Americans did and look for a non-violent solution?

Or, does this all cause a rather large war?

Do not think the Soviets are going to like this.

[stevep]

Apr 30, 2019 19:19:57 GMT lordroel said:

Apr 30, 2019 18:49:55 GMT James G said:

An invasion by students into the Soviet embassy in Tehran was something planned to happen as well as the US compound but it was decided not to. Like with the American embassy, the idea was only to go in and then leave. There was no aim to create the hostage crisis which occurred.

What if the students weren't dissuaded and did take the Soviet embassy? How do they react in Moscow? Could they, would they, go full Spetsnaz & Airborne on Tehran - this was before they did just that to Kabul, quite the successful operation - or do what the Americans did and look for a non-violent solution?

Or, does this all cause a rather large war?

Do not think the Soviets are going to like this.

  Definitely not.  If there wasn't a simultaneous occupation of the US embassy I would suspect the Soviets to go in hard and bloody.  Possibly less to rescue their hostages than to teach a lesson. 

  However with both rival superpowers having hostage crisis in Iran, coupled with the drastic cooling of detente after the invasion of Afghanistan it could be more complex.  Do the two consider co-operation, either diplomatic or militarily or if one goes without the other there are a number of ways it could develop.  If say the Soviets reacted quickly with a violent assault on Tehran does the latter consider coming to terms with the US say?  True as he showed at the end of the war with Iraq Khomeini was driven more by his ego than anything else so that's probably unlikely but before he really crushes opposition to his rule and possibly the leaders of the rebellion uniting against him even?

  Another possible option with a seizure of the Soviet embassy and hostages being held.  The last serious opposition to Khomeini's dictatorship was by assorted pro-communist groups who were conducting a bombing campaign against the regime and only really disappeared after the war with Iraq started.  [Which might suggest that they had a lot of support until the threat of Iraqi invasion unified the population behind the regime].  If so the Soviets might give more support to such group and possibly you could see an assassination attempt against Khomeini with Soviet support?

[lordroel]

Apr 30, 2019 19:38:29 GMT stevep said:

Apr 30, 2019 19:19:57 GMT lordroel said:

Do not think the Soviets are going to like this.

  Definitely not.  If there wasn't a simultaneous occupation of the US embassy I would suspect the Soviets to go in hard and bloody.  Possibly less to rescue their hostages than to teach a lesson. 

  However with both rival superpowers having hostage crisis in Iran, coupled with the drastic cooling of detente after the invasion of Afghanistan it could be more complex.  Do the two consider co-operation, either diplomatic or militarily or if one goes without the other there are a number of ways it could develop.  If say the Soviets reacted quickly with a violent assault on Tehran does the latter consider coming to terms with the US say?  True as he showed at the end of the war with Iraq Khomeini was driven more by his ego than anything else so that's probably unlikely but before he really crushes opposition to his rule and possibly the leaders of the rebellion uniting against him even?

  Another possible option with a seizure of the Soviet embassy and hostages being held.  The last serious opposition to Khomeini's dictatorship was by assorted pro-communist groups who were conducting a bombing campaign against the regime and only really disappeared after the war with Iraq started.  [Which might suggest that they had a lot of support until the threat of Iraqi invasion unified the population behind the regime].  If so the Soviets might give more support to such group and possibly you could see an assassination attempt against Khomeini with Soviet support?

It did happen in 1980 in OTL, can we use that as a example: Afghans Storm Soviet Embassy in Tehran to Protest 1979 Invasion

[forcon]

The Soviets would have gotten their people back one way or another.

It could either be done Beiruit style - anyone remember that story about the GRU going after the families of terrorists who kidnapped Soviet diplomats are bargaining chips? - or with a full military strike.

Though I'd personally rate Delta Force as amore effective hostage rescue unit than the Spetsnaz, the Soviets wouldn't need an operation as hideously complex as Eagle Claw. There'd be no Desert One, no need to seize an airfield, no covert infiltration of Tehran using trucks acquired by assets in-country; it would be a case of load up a battalion of Spetsnaz into some Hinds and fly them to the embassy(s) from Turkmenistan with Floggers and Fencers in support.

If the Soviets hit both embassies and hand the Americans straight back over to the US, they're going to score a whole load of diplomatic brownie points. A joint operation would be unlikely because the US high command was so secretive about Eagle Claw. Part of thay secrecy was what doomed the operation; the US refused help when West Germany offered the support of assets it had undercover in Tehran as a TV crew*, so they sure as hell won't accept it from the Soviets.

If a joint operation did occur, however, success is almost gauranteed, albeit with some casualties amongst the hostages during the firefight. The Walker Spy Ring, reporting to the Soviets, wouldn't be an issue in the case of a joint op either.

*I don't know if this is the exact story, but according to Col. Beckwith or Sgt.-Maj Haney it was something like that. I read it in one of their books, but I can't remember which.

[stevep]

Apr 30, 2019 19:52:22 GMT forcon said:

The Soviets would have gotten their people back one way or another.

It could either be done Beiruit style - anyone remember that story about the GRU going after the families of terrorists who kidnapped Soviet diplomats are bargaining chips? - or with a full military strike.

Though I'd personally rate Delta Force as amore effective hostage rescue unit than the Spetsnaz, the Soviets wouldn't need an operation as hideously complex as Eagle Claw. There'd be no Desert One, no need to seize an airfield, no covert infiltration of Tehran using trucks acquired by assets in-country; it would be a case of load up a battalion of Spetsnaz into some Hinds and fly them to the embassy(s) from Turkmenistan with Floggers and Fencers in support.

If the Soviets hit both embassies and hand the Americans straight back over to the US, they're going to score a whole load of diplomatic brownie points. A joint operation would be unlikely because the US high command was so secretive about Eagle Claw. Part of thay secrecy was what doomed the operation; the US refused help when West Germany offered the support of assets it had undercover in Tehran as a TV crew*, so they sure as hell won't accept it from the Soviets.

If a joint operation did occur, however, success is almost gauranteed, albeit with some casualties amongst the hostages during the firefight. The Walker Spy Ring, reporting to the Soviets, wouldn't be an issue in the case of a joint op either.

*I don't know if this is the exact story, but according to Col. Beckwith or Sgt.-Maj Haney it was something like that. I read it in one of their books, but I can't remember which.

  That is one thing I considered for this but I'm not sure it would be that effective, at least presuming the regime recognises and supports the embassy seizures.  In Lebanon while there was a political/religious element it was far more about money for releasing the hostages.  Also family was important to the clans involved in such activities and small groups are more vulnerable to such counter-terrorism.  Plus local rivalry might be a factor in that if one clan gets too weak it risks being supplanted by another, which might also help in giving information to the Soviets.

  With Iran, with a hard line fanatical government its markedly less likely that it would bend to such pressure.  However agree that the Soviets could go in hard to release/avenge their hostages.

  The idea of them simultaneously freeing the American hostages is something I hadn't thought of.  It might win them some brownie points and make Reagan's campaign against them later a bit more difficult.  Although the invasion of Afghanistan and continued military build up would make a western reaction almost certain. However it would definitely kill off any chance of Carter winning re-election as it would be a huge embarrassment to the US that their great rivals had freed their hostages.

[James G]

May 1, 2019 8:35:17 GMT stevep said:

Apr 30, 2019 19:52:22 GMT forcon said:

 

  The idea of them simultaneously freeing the American hostages is something I hadn't thought of.  It might win them some brownie points and make Reagan's campaign against them later a bit more difficult.  Although the invasion of Afghanistan and continued military build up would make a western reaction almost certain. However it would definitely kill off any chance of Carter winning re-election as it would be a huge embarrassment to the US that their great rivals had freed their hostages.

An idea springs to mind here.
The Soviets rescue the hostages, pull them all out and then present the news to the world. The Americans are caught on the back foot.
All of a sudden, Moscow is regarded as a saviour, their Spetsnaz are heroes, and there is pure embarrassment in Washington.

[insect]

BOTH Soviet and U.s. go on joint venture to free hostages,this cools down the cold war.

[stevep]

May 15, 2019 3:19:59 GMT insect said:

BOTH Soviet and U.s. go on joint venture to free hostages,this cools down the cold war.

  Possible but unlikely I suspect.  Detente was already cooling and unless the embassy seizures affect Soviet actions very quickly their still going to invade Afghanistan within a month of it starting which effectively cooled it and prompted a major increase in US defense plans in Carter's last year in power. 

  Also, even for the Soviets and especially for the US such an operation depends on secrecy as to how your planning to liberate the hostages and when.  Otherwise your likely to run into much greater opposition and probably find the people your trying to free have been moved elsewhere.  As such both sides would be reluctant to tell anyone, let alone their deeply mistrusted enemies.  Especially since some at least might fear a betrayal where the others leak information to the Iranians about the other's plan either to possibly get their people released or to deflect attention.

  True this is less likely if attempts to relief both sets of hostages include combined operations by both nations.  However this would mean the two military's and intelligence organisations working closely together, which apart from any mistrust raises problems with different equipment and doctrines having to be matched up, which complicates matters.

[James G]

While the Soviets and Americans working together would make great fiction, it would never have happened. Too much distrust, too many zealots and a certainty of a 'friendly' clash.