Using any reasonable PoD after the Iran Hostage Crisis, restore good relations between the United States and Iran. Bonus points for moving up from friendship to alliance.
AH Challenge: US-Iranian Rapproachment
- Thread starter Chengar Qordath
- Start date
Pakistan helps Taliban more openly including sending regular Pak army to fight NA. In 1996 Republicans get White house (for whatever reason). In 1998 AQ blows up US embasises in Kenya and Tanzania as per OTL. US prez decides on stronger response. As Pakistan isn't willing to allow it's territory to be used (not even for overflights) Iranians offer to invade A'stan if US removes embargo. US agrees to a degree. Iran invades, topples Taliban and disperses AQ camps (there are rumours afloat that US SOF are running loose in A'stan and that some of airstrikes were carried out by USAF bombers and cruise missiles). US praises new generation of Iranian leaders as reformists and force of stability and removes embargo and normalises relations.
In 2001 India and Pakistan engage in nuclear war that leaves tens of millions dead. (just because they can
)
In 2001 India and Pakistan engage in nuclear war that leaves tens of millions dead. (just because they can
)Iraqi attacks in 1981/2 reach Tehran and missiles wipe out the leadership of Iran. A new government arises afterwards that continues the war for about another year, resulting in many casualties. Most of these are jihadists who see secular Iraq as the infidel to stop. With the war concluded much more in Iraq's favor, Hussein eyes Kuwait as means of repaying debt, threatening the GCC and Iran unless they stay out of it. After Hussein invades Juwait and peripheral Saudi Arabian territory, an Iranian leader that is not nearly so radical as Khomeni meets secretly with the West and allows American/ Coalition forces to use Persian bases as a means of counterattack. By 1992 Iranian forces are rebuilding Baghdad and absorb Turmenistan, Azerbaijan, and have mended relations with America. Tehran settles down as foreign capital comes back into the nation and the 1990s see radical leaps in standard of living. The 09/11 saga solidifies the new friendships/de facto alliance against radical Sunni Islam between Tehran and Washington as the Taliban are mowed down by Iranian forces already on the verge of war with them. Northern Iraq becomes an autonomous state as the rest melds into Iran and much of world's attention focuses on North Korea over the next few years.
1) Hostage rescue somehow comes off.
2) Carter treats Saddam's starting of an aggresssive war as just that and supports UN action against the aggressor- especially re oil.
2) Carter treats Saddam's starting of an aggresssive war as just that and supports UN action against the aggressor- especially re oil.
Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy
Banned
I never understood all this stuff about Iran annexing large areas outside its borders. Iran may see itself as a Shiite state, but it also sees itself as an Iranian (ethnic) state. Neither the Turkmen, Azeris nor Marsh Arabs are Iranians, and Tehran already has enough troubles with minorities.
Annexations are old-fashioned in most places, it's far easier to just have friendly governments where you need them. Did the US annex Western Europe after WWII? Did it need to? All the Iranians will accomplish is greatly piss off the Russians, Arabs, Turks, remaining Central Asians, Afghans, and Armenians, maybe even the Pakistanis (certainly the Israelis, but that makes little difference), all while losing the ethnic majority in their own country and having it replaced with a simple plurality.
Oh, and the Turkmen aren't even Shiites.
ninebucks
Banned
Azeris not Iranian? Try telling that to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
To say Iranian is ethnicity would be like saying Roman, in the context of the classical empire, was an ethnicity. It of course wasn't. Similarly, Iran has always been a multiethnic transnational state, and to claim otherwise is clearly untrue.
And there are already Turkmen Iranians, who follow Sunni Islam, like 8% of their fellow Iranians. To suggest that Iran is solely Shi'a is another brash over-simplification.
Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy
Banned
I do find it amusing that Iran's got an Azeri supreme leader but the US still hasn't got a black president.
But if the POTUS was black, would Americans think it a good idea to annex South Africa?
Modern Iran isn't ancient Iran. Every country in the world is multiethnic to some degree, yet most of them have a preferred ethnicity. Remember "Our ancestors, the Gauls..."?
Now the Iranian cultural sphere is very different from the Iranian ethnicity. Azeris are very much in it, which is why Khamenei has his job; Marsh Arabs and Turkmen I'm not so sure about. But that cultural sphere will only take you so far these days. 4 centuries ago Poland had no qualms about including within its borders countless Lithuanians and East Slavs that were part of its cultural sphere but of a different ethnicity. But that was long before the age of nationalism.
No, Iran is a Shiite theocracy. Meaning they'd rather not have that many Sunnis to deal with.
This interesting article came up in the chat section:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=57345
Maybe a US Iranian rapproachment would not be as hard as I had thought.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=57345
Maybe a US Iranian rapproachment would not be as hard as I had thought.
There will never be rapproachment so long as Iran -- even perceptually -- aids Hamas or Hezbollah.
I'm not anti-Israel, but neither am I anti-Palestine, either. But until some kind of lasting peace can exist between these two groups, there can be no peace between the US and any Islamic theocracy. Which means never, because neither Israel nor the Palestinians will ever give an inch to the other.
Relations between the US and Iran could improve, if both nations (but particularly Iran) gain leadership that is less given to incendiary rhetoric...but unless and until Iran detaches itself from supporting militarists against Israel, there will never be detente, let alone alliance.
As with Cuba and NK, just as with the USSR, Iran is a waiting game. The smartest policy is to keep them at arm's length, waiting for a power shift.
I'm not anti-Israel, but neither am I anti-Palestine, either. But until some kind of lasting peace can exist between these two groups, there can be no peace between the US and any Islamic theocracy. Which means never, because neither Israel nor the Palestinians will ever give an inch to the other.
Relations between the US and Iran could improve, if both nations (but particularly Iran) gain leadership that is less given to incendiary rhetoric...but unless and until Iran detaches itself from supporting militarists against Israel, there will never be detente, let alone alliance.
As with Cuba and NK, just as with the USSR, Iran is a waiting game. The smartest policy is to keep them at arm's length, waiting for a power shift.
In May 2003 the Swiss Ambassador gave the State Department a proposal which had been supposedly approved by the highest level of the Iranian gov't, including Ayatollah Khameni. The Iranians were apparently Shocked and Awed by the US success in Iraq- they'd fought Saddam for ten years without much result.
As well as offering co-operation in stabilising Iraq and fighting al Qaeda, the proposal contained this:
http://www.prospect.org/web/
So, over-excited by the toppling of Saddam, Dick Cheney has a massive heart attack and dies. Bush appoints Condi Rice as the new VP, and when the Iranian proposal comes in she is emboldened enough by her new position to support Colin Powell in urging exploratory talks, framing it as a victory for the Administration and promising that she'll hold Powell to a tough bargaining stance.
Bush is opposed at first- he wants regime change- but without Cheney to push the neo-con vision he reluctantly goes along, and talks tentatively begin.
Powell was never into nation-building and wants troops out as soon as possible, so he goes along with Sistani's call for earlier elections: January 2004 instead of January 2005.He also gets VP Rice to overrule the proposal for disbanding the Iraqi army.
The insurgency has not had time to become widespread; at this time reporters could still drive around freely, and the Sunni turnout is high enough to give the elections legitimacy. The Sunni leaders have been alarmed by the thought of America dealing with Iran and urge their fellows to get out and vote.
Bush, buoyed both by the new Iraqi government and Condeleeza, wins a smashing electoral victory- that he is sitting down and talking to the Iranians about peace in the Middle East belies the bellicose image the Democrats are trying to pin on him. The right-wing is not too happy, but what are they going to do- vote Democrat?- and Karl Rove spins it as "blessed are the peace-makers".
As well as offering co-operation in stabilising Iraq and fighting al Qaeda, the proposal contained this:
http://www.prospect.org/web/
So, over-excited by the toppling of Saddam, Dick Cheney has a massive heart attack and dies. Bush appoints Condi Rice as the new VP, and when the Iranian proposal comes in she is emboldened enough by her new position to support Colin Powell in urging exploratory talks, framing it as a victory for the Administration and promising that she'll hold Powell to a tough bargaining stance.
Bush is opposed at first- he wants regime change- but without Cheney to push the neo-con vision he reluctantly goes along, and talks tentatively begin.
Powell was never into nation-building and wants troops out as soon as possible, so he goes along with Sistani's call for earlier elections: January 2004 instead of January 2005.He also gets VP Rice to overrule the proposal for disbanding the Iraqi army.
The insurgency has not had time to become widespread; at this time reporters could still drive around freely, and the Sunni turnout is high enough to give the elections legitimacy. The Sunni leaders have been alarmed by the thought of America dealing with Iran and urge their fellows to get out and vote.
Bush, buoyed both by the new Iraqi government and Condeleeza, wins a smashing electoral victory- that he is sitting down and talking to the Iranians about peace in the Middle East belies the bellicose image the Democrats are trying to pin on him. The right-wing is not too happy, but what are they going to do- vote Democrat?- and Karl Rove spins it as "blessed are the peace-makers".