AHC: Surviving Imperial Iran

[simon darkshade]

What are the implications of a surviving Imperial Iran, both in the Middle East and broader world?

[lordroel]

Sept 8, 2021 3:45:14 GMT simon darkshade said:

What are the implications of a surviving Imperial Iran, both in the Middle East and broader world?

Is that with ore without Mohammad Reza Pahlavi on the throne.

[simon darkshade]

He can retain the throne or be removed in favour of a son. The scenario is open to either.

[lordroel]

Sept 8, 2021 6:07:52 GMT simon darkshade said:

He can retain the throne or be removed in favour of a son. The scenario is open to either.

Having his son take the throne with a earlier death of his father and have SAVAK disbanded is a good start.

[575]

Really depends on how the Shah runs the show. If he should be able to loosen the reins in some way to make a more democratic governing but also keep the Ayatollah out he might pull it off. The Middle East countries weren't the Islamic States we see today during the 1970's and early 1980's so a lot more want among the populace to get individual rights and freedom which may ease the way to go.
Without an Islamic revolution we wouldn't see Saddam Hussain the proxy of the Western World - just another ME dictator. We might even see Israel and Iran chumming it out quite well no to the liking of the Arab states - read Iraq.
The Middle East would be a much less volatile place for quite some time - though:
The Soviets would quite likely see Iran as the major adversary in the ME though getting some proxy to act against Iran will require some work. Instead of Afghanistan the Kurdish provinces may become a hotspot possible with the Soviets trying to use them as proxy against Iran and then having a Kurdish problem themselves in the Caucasus; that could trigger several Kurdish uprisings or increased activity not only in Iran and Turkey but also Iraq and Syria.. Thing is it would be messy as hell as it would be each and everybody against everyone else..

[fatman10101]

My scenario: Pahlavi abdicates in favor of his son, who I will refer to as Reza II. The new Shah invites Khomeini back to Iran, and tells the Ayatollah that peaceful protests and marches will certainly be tolerated, and even hints at the possibility of a power-sharing plan of sorts. But Reza II tells him that if there is even the mere RUMOR of his followers arming themselves, They will be crushed without hesitation.

[stevep]

Sept 19, 2021 6:22:01 GMT fatman10101 said:

My scenario: Pahlavi abdicates in favor of his son, who I will refer to as Reza II. The new Shah invites Khomeini back to Iran, and tells the Ayatollah that peaceful protests and marches will certainly be tolerated, and even hints at the possibility of a power-sharing plan of sorts. But Reza II tells him that if there is even the mere RUMOR of his followers arming themselves, They will be crushed without hesitation.

  I don't know if this would work as identifying followers intimidating other groups and proving it would be difficult.  Also peaceful protests and marches do nothing other than display unrest.  Only action to meet either political and/or economic needs for the bulk of the population will take the heat out of the situation.  I wouldn't allow Khomeini back in at all but would support reforms that gives more power to ordinary people, political and economic.

  The other option of course is a much sharper crack down on dissent, which might work for a while, especially if whoever's in charge can keep the loyalty of the army and also there's at least some economic carrots to go with the stick.  [What you might think of as the Deng option as the regime says you can have better material conditions and economic freedom but we stay in control of the government].  As others have said this was pretty much the character of most of the states in the region.

[stevep]

Sept 18, 2021 21:17:46 GMT 575 said:

Really depends on how the Shah runs the show. If he should be able to loosen the reins in some way to make a more democratic governing but also keep the Ayatollah out he might pull it off. The Middle East countries weren't the Islamic States we see today during the 1970's and early 1980's so a lot more want among the populace to get individual rights and freedom which may ease the way to go.
Without an Islamic revolution we wouldn't see Saddam Hussain the proxy of the Western World - just another ME dictator. We might even see Israel and Iran chumming it out quite well no to the liking of the Arab states - read Iraq.
The Middle East would be a much less volatile place for quite some time - though:
The Soviets would quite likely see Iran as the major adversary in the ME though getting some proxy to act against Iran will require some work. Instead of Afghanistan the Kurdish provinces may become a hotspot possible with the Soviets trying to use them as proxy against Iran and then having a Kurdish problem themselves in the Caucasus; that could trigger several Kurdish uprisings or increased activity not only in Iran and Turkey but also Iraq and Syria.. Thing is it would be messy as hell as it would be each and everybody against everyone else..

  IIRC Iran and Israel were pretty close allies during this period in part because both of them mistrusted the assorted Arab nations they bordered.

  Also I think the Shah did play the Kurdish card himself in the early 70's encouraging unrest in the Iraqi Kurdish community and supplying some arms and equipment.  However this was to get a deal with Saddam and once he got that he cut off support.  The curse for the Kurds is that because their spread over so many states in the region none of those states have an interest in seeing any sort of rights or autonomy for neighbouring Kurds as its likely to incite calls for the same in their own country.

[575]

Sept 19, 2021 12:51:23 GMT stevep said:

Sept 18, 2021 21:17:46 GMT 575 said:

Really depends on how the Shah runs the show. If he should be able to loosen the reins in some way to make a more democratic governing but also keep the Ayatollah out he might pull it off. The Middle East countries weren't the Islamic States we see today during the 1970's and early 1980's so a lot more want among the populace to get individual rights and freedom which may ease the way to go.
Without an Islamic revolution we wouldn't see Saddam Hussain the proxy of the Western World - just another ME dictator. We might even see Israel and Iran chumming it out quite well no to the liking of the Arab states - read Iraq.
The Middle East would be a much less volatile place for quite some time - though:
The Soviets would quite likely see Iran as the major adversary in the ME though getting some proxy to act against Iran will require some work. Instead of Afghanistan the Kurdish provinces may become a hotspot possible with the Soviets trying to use them as proxy against Iran and then having a Kurdish problem themselves in the Caucasus; that could trigger several Kurdish uprisings or increased activity not only in Iran and Turkey but also Iraq and Syria.. Thing is it would be messy as hell as it would be each and everybody against everyone else..

  Also I think the Shah did play the Kurdish card himself in the early 70's encouraging unrest in the Iraqi Kurdish community and supplying some arms and equipment.  However this was to get a deal with Saddam and once he got that he cut off support.  The curse for the Kurds is that because their spread over so many states in the region none of those states have an interest in seeing any sort of rights or autonomy for neighbouring Kurds as its likely to incite calls for the same in their own country.

Quite as history have revealed to us - Iraq-Iran War is one such.

[lordroel]

Sept 19, 2021 13:05:58 GMT 575 said:

Sept 19, 2021 12:51:23 GMT stevep said:

  Also I think the Shah did play the Kurdish card himself in the early 70's encouraging unrest in the Iraqi Kurdish community and supplying some arms and equipment.  However this was to get a deal with Saddam and once he got that he cut off support.  The curse for the Kurds is that because their spread over so many states in the region none of those states have an interest in seeing any sort of rights or autonomy for neighbouring Kurds as its likely to incite calls for the same in their own country.

Quite as history have revealed to us - Iraq-Iran War is one such.

Wich would be butterflied away as Iran would be much stronger position then Iraq.

[La Rouge Beret]

A surviving Imperial Iran is in an interesting position with multiple threats and opportunities, while they will remain threatened by the Soviets on their northern border & Iraq on the western border, relationships with Pakistan will remain fraught as they were during OTL despite having the same allies. While I think Iran will maintain good relationships with the UK, USA & Israel their sphere of influence overlaps in the Eastern Mediteranean with Turkey. If the Soviets invade Afghanistan the Iranians will support a Hazara militia leading to blue on green conflict with the Pakistani support Pashtun groups, particularly in the mid 90s.

Overall, we need a Pahlavi dynasty that pursues a less inflationary economic course, places funds into a sovereign wealth fund, address the underlying causes of the Mullah's appeal.

Post Soviet collapse & Iran extends their influence into Central Asia, which then places her in competition with China (if other things remain constant). A very interesting scenario to expolore IMHO.

[James G]

Sept 19, 2021 12:51:23 GMT stevep said:

Sept 18, 2021 21:17:46 GMT 575 said:

Really depends on how the Shah runs the show. If he should be able to loosen the reins in some way to make a more democratic governing but also keep the Ayatollah out he might pull it off. The Middle East countries weren't the Islamic States we see today during the 1970's and early 1980's so a lot more want among the populace to get individual rights and freedom which may ease the way to go.
Without an Islamic revolution we wouldn't see Saddam Hussain the proxy of the Western World - just another ME dictator. We might even see Israel and Iran chumming it out quite well no to the liking of the Arab states - read Iraq.
The Middle East would be a much less volatile place for quite some time - though:
The Soviets would quite likely see Iran as the major adversary in the ME though getting some proxy to act against Iran will require some work. Instead of Afghanistan the Kurdish provinces may become a hotspot possible with the Soviets trying to use them as proxy against Iran and then having a Kurdish problem themselves in the Caucasus; that could trigger several Kurdish uprisings or increased activity not only in Iran and Turkey but also Iraq and Syria.. Thing is it would be messy as hell as it would be each and everybody against everyone else..

  IIRC Iran and Israel were pretty close allies during this period in part because both of them mistrusted the assorted Arab nations they bordered.

Interestingly, Iranian-Israeli ties went on past 1979 too.
Didn't the Iran-Contra issue involve Israel somehow? And there was the strikes against Iraq's Osirak reactor too where IIRC there was cooperation?

[La Rouge Beret]

The other thing to remember is that even now Tehran has a sizable Jewish population that was traditionally well integrated and with the Shah continuing to rule that will continue. Which makes me wonder whether the Jewish lobby in Washington would advocate for Iran along with Israel.

In my 12 Minutes to Midnight TL I have a surviving Imperial Iran and the Middle East ends up as a far more stable society.