What if Iran hadn't released the hostages after Ronald Reagan was sworn into office.

[VictortheMonarch]

So we should all know the shebang, Carter's femboy begging didn't deter the Iranians, but Ronald Reagan decided that he would be elected president, so decided to threaten to nuke the fuckers if they didn't hand the hostages over, infact, Reagan is the reason we have the 'nuked back to the stone age' saying! And by god he would've, so the Iranians freed the hostages within ten minutes of him being sworn in.

So my dear Sietch boyo's and girlo's, what would've happened if they decided not to free the hostages? Reagan would've to have nuked them, to remain a strong figure in the bulwark of Communism and Anti-Americanism. Would Persia be a nuclear wasteland? If so what would be the effects on the surrounding countries? The Climate as a whole? If he didn't, would the Soviets still go down with a light fight, or would it be the roar of a Siberian tiger, not dead yet?

Personally I believe this could very well end in nuclear devastation upon Iran, and perhaps a collapse of the US AND Soviet Union.

 

[Circle of Willis]

Going nuclear on Iran would be pointless overkill, as the hostages had been scattered across Iran after Carter's Op. Eagle Claw failed (specifically so they couldn't all be rescued in one go) and would certainly have died alongside their captors if Reagan carpet-nuked the country. Just nuking, say, Tehran guarantees the death of every hostage not located there, as nuking any other single Iranian city would have done. And going nuclear risks a response from the Soviet Union, which after all directly bordered Iran and whose trigger finger was starting to get itchy (hence all those near-misses in the 80s).

If the mullahs won't let the American hostages go, Reagan's best bet is not to make good on his threats but rather becomes continuing the negotiations with a tougher line and perhaps attempting another go at rescuing them, hopefully with better luck & planning than Carter's attempt. However the Iranians will probably be ready for it, as demonstrated by their decision to scatter the hostages across their country already. If another rescue is attempted and Khomeini gives the order to kill the hostages in retaliation, I think you'll see a ground invasion of Iran out of Reagan rather than any nuclear response.

The shadow of Vietnam still loomed large, so I really don't think Reagan and his advisors would even consider any long-term occupation & nation-building enterprise if they were forced to invade - and it's not like America needed nukes to dropkick the Iranians out of modernity, when they still have the rest of their conventional arsenal to do that with. The mission would be to go in, knock Iran back to the year 1280 with conventional munitions, kill the Ayatollah and go home after leaving Iran a smoldering (but non-radioactive!) crater whose remaining population will replace Genghis Khan with Reagan in the scary stories they tell misbehaving kids. The US could also enlist Saddam's help for the invasion in exchange for Iraq being allowed to annex Khuzestan, which I don't believe will bother Reagan too much in a 'hostage massacre' scenario.

I'd imagine the Soviets would be able to install their own client government on Iran in the aftermath though, as the surviving Iranians will be no less hostile to America and the Tudeh Party (Iranian Communists) will remain the only remotely powerful faction left in the country after the Islamists have been napalmed to oblivion. In fact I could imagine Brezhnev & friends tacitly allowing the invasion (the sight of a hostage massacre and resulting domestic reaction in American itself would make such violent reprisal understandably inevitable even to the Soviets) while limiting themselves to vocal condemnations, precisely to curry favor with the Iranian survivors and realize this outcome for their own benefit.

 

[Tiamat]

Hard to say, there are a lot of variables to consider here, and I won't go into all of them just yet, however...

First, is nuclear weapons actually being considered, and not just as a campaign slogan? Yeah, Operation Eagle Claw was an out and out disaster, but while the Americans may not be able to get the hostages, but if the gloves are coming off, then there are still viable conventional means to punish the Iranians. Use the US Navy along with the USAF based out of bases in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, etc. to first destroy the Iranian's naval capabilities, then start hitting the offshore oil platforms, tankers and the refineries at Bandar Abbas and Kharg Island. Shut down the Iranian's ability to export oil, period.

If you really want to go the nuclear route? I would go with a "demonstration" at first...in this case, one 150 kiloton nuke, or several right over Kharg Island and irradiate it. If that fails? Next target, Bandar Abbas, and so forth. And the Iranian's won't be able to do jack all, unless they plan to kill the hostages. And if that happens? Well...

One has to remember, when you're a descendant of the Persian empire, now an authoritarian Islamic nation run by fanatics who are screaming "Death to (Fill in the Blank)!!!" to basically everybody who doesn't see things their way which isn't just American and Israel, but also the Soviet Union, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, socialist countries and wants to export their "Islamic revolution" worldwide, dont' be surprised if you suddenly find yourself with few friends. There's a reason that as tragic as the Iran-Iraq war was, most of the rest of the world was just sitting back and passing the popcorn, as neither country was particularly well-liked (didn't keep some Westerners from hatching 'business deals' with Saddam Hussein, but that's another story).

 

[Atarlost]

The point isn't to rescue the hostages, it's to make sure no one in the future thinks taking hostages is a good idea.

If we assume Reagan uses nuclear weapons and Russia accepts that the nuking Iran isn't an attack on Russia they probably still hold it over Reagan's head. I think the cost of nuking Iran is probably letting the Russians have a free hand in Afganistan. I'm not sure if this extends the USSR's lifespan or not. Militant Islam gets pretty well strangled in its crib, though.

 

[Airedale260]

Actually, it wasn't Reagan's rhetoric that was what caused the Iranians to turn over the hostages, but rather the signing of the Algiers Accords:

Algiers Accords - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The hostages were already at the airport and waiting to leave before Reagan was sworn in. There were some alleged difficulties that delayed the takeoff to just a few seconds after Reagan was sworn in, but at most that might have been a minor "fuck you" to Carter (and given that this is Iran, sheer incompetence is just as possible).

Nuking Iran would not go over well with anyone in the region. Yes, every single country on Earth that mattered hated their guts. But the spread of fallout to other countries (including the USSR but also Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States) would also have pissed tons of people off.

What's far more likely are what @Circle of Willis and @Tiamat said -a massive conventional bombing campaign that results in Iran getting leveled but without the nasty aftereffects of nuclear weapons. However, that might also encourage the Soviets to embark on a campaign to try and build up Iran in the aftermath (which would also be a geopolitical disaster) and Iraq getting grabby with Khuzestan. OTOH, no more ayatollahs, so...yay?

The problem isn't that Carter was a pushover in dealing with the hostage crisis, but rather that the execution of the rescue attempt was a miserable failure. When it did and the Iranians dispersed the hostages to prevent another, he didn't have much choice other than going the diplomatic route in trying to get them home alive.

Again, I said this to someone else, but the whole "hacking all big and bad" approach has the major drawback in that it's a surefire way to have some if not all of the hostages you're trying to rescue executed. Which would have been an even BIGGER disaster for Carter or, if it had happened on his watch, Reagan. If that had happened, I'd expect a conventional bombing campaign if not overt entry into the Iran-Iraq War alongside Saddam. And given the pitiful state of the Iranian military, they would have been absolutely leveled.

 

[Atarlost]

Reagan was elected after promising to nuke Iran into the stone age if the hostages weren't returned voluntarily. That means the electorate had already decided that strongly discouraging future hostage situations was more important than the return of the current hostages.

 

[Circle of Willis]

OK, I must admit I'm confused, is this a DBWI? To my understanding, Reagan was not the source of the 'bomb them back to the Stone Age' quote - that was Curtis LeMay talking about North Vietnam - and he was pretty adamant about wanting the hostages back alive during the 1980 campaign which making Iran glow would obviously have a rather counterproductive impact on. He did say he wouldn't offer up any ransom to the Iranians but that's a far cry from threatening to glass Iran if they didn't let the hostages go.

The assumption that the Soviets would just let Iran get nuked when it's right next door to their southern flank and, as @Airedale260 mentioned, there's a good (if not certain) chance the fallout will affect them seems a massively unwarranted one to me. I can't think of anything that would justify making such an assumption at all. Should be noted that when the Soviets had a hostage crisis of their own to deal with - four of their diplomats were kidnapped by Islamist terrorists in Beirut in 1985, and one was killed - their response was to take the hostage-takers' relatives hostage in turn, castrate one of them and send the remains to the kidnappers. It was not to nuke Lebanon, with or without America's approval, so while I think they'd tolerate the US going ham on Iran if the latter's hostages were killed or even just not released, I do believe Brezhnev & friends would draw a hard line at nuclear weapons.

 

[bintananth]

The hostages were already at the airport and waiting to leave before Reagan was sworn in. There were some alleged difficulties that delayed the takeoff to just a few seconds after Reagan was sworn in, but at most that might have been a minor "fuck you" to Carter (and given that this is Iran, sheer incompetence is just as possible).

IIRC, the Iranians were told that Regan was willing to work with them if (and only if) the hostages weren't released while Carter was still President.

Regan was an evil monster.

 

[Airedale260]

IIRC, the Iranians were told that Regan was willing to work with them if (and only if) the hostages weren't released while Carter was still President.

Regan was an evil monster.

Reagan was far from perfect, perhaps, but that claim is from Carter's chief of staff, who is a less than unbiased source on it.

Apparently, however, the Iranians DID deliberately do it as a "fuck you" to Carter. Which actually makes sense when you consider that the Iranians absolutely hated him -he was the one who let the Shah into the U.S., after all, and tried launching the rescue operation.

 

[The Unicorn]

Keep in mind that in this time frame Iraq was at least nominally a US ally and would have been overjoyed to get US support in blowing the hell out of Iran, however exactly because of that, if the US started to do that, the USSR would pretty much be forced to support Iran, no matter how they felt about the Mullahs.

In other words - No, the Iraninas would not find themselvs without any friends if they found themselves fighting a war with the US.

 

[Airedale260]

Keep in mind that in this time frame Iraq was at least nominally a US ally and would have been overjoyed to get US support in blowing the hell out of Iran, however exactly because of that, if the US started to do that, the USSR would pretty much be forced to support Iran, no matter how they felt about the Mullahs.

In other words - No, the Iraninas would not find themselvs without any friends if they found themselves fighting a war with the US.

Actually, that’s not true. The Iranians were looking to export their revolution to Central Asia (read: several of the USSR’s constituent republics), while at the same time wanted to overthrow Saddam (who the USSR was trying to keep on their side lest he go over to the West), and this is at the point where they’re getting involved in Afghanistan, so…if the U.S. actually starts a shooting war with the Iranians the Soviets aren’t going to do more than shrug and tell them don’t fuck around near their border. Other than that? If the U.S. wants to get involved in a land war they won’t care, just keeps the Americans busy.

 

[Tiamat]

Actually, that’s not true. The Iranians were looking to export their revolution to Central Asia (read: several of the USSR’s constituent republics), while at the same time wanted to overthrow Saddam (who the USSR was trying to keep on their side lest he go over to the West), and this is at the point where they’re getting involved in Afghanistan, so…if the U.S. actually starts a shooting war with the Iranians the Soviets aren’t going to do more than shrug and tell them don’t fuck around near their border. Other than that? If the U.S. wants to get involved in a land war they won’t care, just keeps the Americans busy.

I would agree...however, only with the caveat, like you mentioned of "no American forces approach the Soviet border". And right there could be a potential rub. How far does this potential shooting war with Iran go with the US? What if American aircraft end up getting too close to the Soviet border with the possibility of a border incident, what then? Do Iranian refugees start spilling across the Soviet/Iranian border? Or do the Soviets decide to invest in the Tudeh (Iranian communist) movement as a new wrinkle and potential foil to both the Americans and the Iranian Islamists...?

Tudeh Party of Iran - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

EDIT: Also worth noting the Soviets had continuing ethnic/religious strife going on in it's Central Asian territories/republics, sometimes culminating in riots that got put down by the MVD and KGB. With the Iranians wanting to export their Islamist revolution worldwide, and these republics in their sights which could mean even more unrest? The Soviets will be more than happy to see the would-be Revolution get consigned to hell along with the 72 virgins.

Disclaimer: In no way am I suggesting certain topics that might get explored in a certain "what if" WW3 fic I'm writing...

 

[Airedale260]

I would agree...however, only with the caveat, like you mentioned of "no American forces approach the Soviet border". And right there could be a potential rub. How far does this potential shooting war with Iran go with the US? What if American aircraft end up getting too close to the Soviet border with the possibility of a border incident, what then? Do Iranian refugees start spilling across the Soviet/Iranian border? Or do the Soviets decide to invest in the Tudeh (Iranian communist) movement as a new wrinkle and potential foil to both the Americans and the Iranian Islamists...?

Tudeh Party of Iran - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

EDIT: Also worth noting the Soviets had continuing ethnic/religious strife going on in it's Central Asian territories/republics, sometimes culminating in riots that got put down by the MVD and KGB. With the Iranians wanting to export their Islamist revolution worldwide, and these republics in their sights which could mean even more unrest? The Soviets will be more than happy to see the would-be Revolution get consigned to hell along with the 72 virgins.

Disclaimer: In no way am I suggesting certain topics that might get explored in a certain "what if" WW3 fic I'm writing...

l think if Iranian forces wind up getting close to the border, the Soviets might step in (albeit uninvited). The problem for them is that their deployable* forces amount to whatever VDV (Soviet Airborne) and Spetznaz forces they have to spare, along with air power. Their conventional forces are pretty much crap at this point (hell, they can’t even sufficiently supply the conventional troops they have in Afghanistan), the terrain in question is all mountains (except for the immediate coastal areas around the Caspian in Iran as well as small segments extending into Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan), it’s an absolute catastrophe waiting to happen if the Soviets actually try that with their conventional forces (which are mechanized). And as it turned out, the Soviets were even worse at fighting insurgent forces in unfamiliar terrain than the Americans (particularly mountainous terrain when surrounded by fanatical Muslims).

Based on that, it’s possible the Soviets allow the Americans a free hand in Iran (as in, getting close to the border to take out any Iranian forces trying to hide or else putting the hurt on themselves if they enter Soviet territory)…but only if the Americans do the same for the Soviets in Afghanistan. It’d be weird as fuck but given just how much the Iranians would have to have pissed off the U.S. to get to this point, they might agree to it just to be sure they bag Khomeini and his band of merry mullahs.

And, fortunately for the Americans, the mullahs started to piss off the rest of Iran with their shit, so it’s possible that the U.S. can install a regime that’s at least cordial to the U.S. (read: No Pahlavis Allowed!) *Maybe* the son if he’s a total figurehead with full power invested in the Majlis.

This would certainly make for a weird fucking timeline, too, if Iran is friendly to the U.S. and the Soviets either wipe out the resistance in Afghanistan (or they don’t but the conflict is localized so no bin Laden). Saddam might also think twice about crossing the U.S. if there’s a U.S.-aligned Iran on his border. Don’t know if they’d let him hold onto Khuzestan, either, at that point. Maybe allow him to extract whatever oil he can until the mullahs are defeated?

So many possibilities…and incidentally I for one would love to see such in a timeline. Or at least updates to one

*-Autocorrect seems to keep wanting to change that to ‘deplorable’ which describes Soviet conventional forces of the time quite well, but not the VDV and special forces troops. And given that the Red Army of the time was designed as a conventional mechanized force to go toe-to-toe with NATO (and that their logistics completely fucking suck in both the Caucasus and Central Asian regions

 

[VictortheMonarch]

The point isn't to rescue the hostages, it's to make sure no one in the future thinks taking hostages is a good idea.

If we assume Reagan uses nuclear weapons and Russia accepts that the nuking Iran isn't an attack on Russia they probably still hold it over Reagan's head. I think the cost of nuking Iran is probably letting the Russians have a free hand in Afghanistan. I'm not sure if this extends the USSR's lifespan or not. Militant Islam gets pretty well strangled in its crib, though.

Now that I think about it, probably a better scenario then the shithole we've been put through. My cousin watched his best friend get executed by the Taliban, only to find out that 'They're better people now!' just because of Biden's BS.

 

[VictortheMonarch]

Honestly, I'm either going to make a Timeline/AU story of this, or one you will, so excuse me for a mere moment.

 

[VictortheMonarch]

posted the thread here. might have to scroll up as I might have the link on the second chap. you know the sietch and its wonderous (And annoying) ways.