US + USSR allied against extreme Islam by 1980
- Thread starter Derek Jackson
- Start date
If the Iranian students who stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran did the same thing to the Soviet Embassy, who knows? Of course, that was Oct. '79, so having relationship ca. 2001 w/r/t Islamic extremists might be pushing things.
If the Soviet Union had a better relationship with Israel, rather than always ending up supporting regimes in Syria, Iraq, et al, then you might see an increase in anti-Soviet terrorism within Islamic groups. However, you'd really need an overall increase in the activity of such groups, anyway.
So many of the various factions operating today are splinter groups that can be traced back to Hezb'allah or the PLO... and most have only been around for the past 20 years or less (and in particular since Arafat tried to go legit, changing the PLO into the PA).
Not to overlook Islamic extremist groups in SE Asia (esp. the Philippines) or theocratic reactionaries who want to overthrown existing governments in moderate Islamic countries (eg, the Taliban), but ultimately it always comes back to Israel and its friends. So something would have to paint U.S.S.R. as a nation of Zionist sympathizers in order to foster significant anti-Soviet opinions within these extremist groups.
Or, on the other hand, you could go WAY back to 1917 and have Patriarch V.I. Lenin lead Mother Russia in her own reformation/revolution, becoming an orthodox theocracy itself. Judaism, while not the State Religion, would be tolerated as the Jews were, of course, the children of God, sine qua non.
This could, of course, butterfly Islamic extremism away, as I can certainly envision a Russian theocratic war machine seizing much of the current Middle East in the name of converting those pesky locals...
If the Soviet Union had a better relationship with Israel, rather than always ending up supporting regimes in Syria, Iraq, et al, then you might see an increase in anti-Soviet terrorism within Islamic groups. However, you'd really need an overall increase in the activity of such groups, anyway.
So many of the various factions operating today are splinter groups that can be traced back to Hezb'allah or the PLO... and most have only been around for the past 20 years or less (and in particular since Arafat tried to go legit, changing the PLO into the PA).
Not to overlook Islamic extremist groups in SE Asia (esp. the Philippines) or theocratic reactionaries who want to overthrown existing governments in moderate Islamic countries (eg, the Taliban), but ultimately it always comes back to Israel and its friends. So something would have to paint U.S.S.R. as a nation of Zionist sympathizers in order to foster significant anti-Soviet opinions within these extremist groups.
Or, on the other hand, you could go WAY back to 1917 and have Patriarch V.I. Lenin lead Mother Russia in her own reformation/revolution, becoming an orthodox theocracy itself. Judaism, while not the State Religion, would be tolerated as the Jews were, of course, the children of God, sine qua non.
This could, of course, butterfly Islamic extremism away, as I can certainly envision a Russian theocratic war machine seizing much of the current Middle East in the name of converting those pesky locals...
WI say somehow by the mid-1980s Ollie North and co. were able to work alongside the KGB to ensure the shared protection of their respective assets in Beirut, esp after Ollie so admired how the KGB responded iso swiftly, violently & effectively to the kidnapping of Soviet diplomats, & decided to have the US embark on a similar path so that all US hostagers would be freed with no more taken ?
Of course, this also requires that US support for the MUJAHIDEEN in Afghanistan is much less ?
Of course, this also requires that US support for the MUJAHIDEEN in Afghanistan is much less ?
I don't think an actual alliance is credible, but if the USA do not come to believe that they can control or use Islamic radicals, they might simply come to the conclusion that Islamism, like OTL anarchism earlier, is something neither side in the ideological conflict has any interest in. Iran makes a decent POD, actually. Bear in mind, it isn't the position of the USSR we need to shift. Moscow was never a friend of the Islamists.
Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy
Banned
Maybe if the Soviets intervene against Islamists trying to overthrow their clients in Egypt and Syria we might get something. The local socialist regimes were never very popular with Islamists, especially the Muslim Brotherhood. (I'm not putting Iraq on the list because an intervention there could easily lead to WWIII.)
Or maybe if that attack on US ally Pakistan that had been a possibility even before Afghanistan actually takes place.
Or maybe if that attack on US ally Pakistan that had been a possibility even before Afghanistan actually takes place.
There might be more of an aggressive policy by the USSR if something were to happen in, say, Chechnya, Dagestan, or what are today (in OTL) the Central Asian Republics. A group, with enough organization and weapons, could lead an insurgency in the area(s) mentioned.
Although, interestingly, if something like that were to occur, the US would quickly back such a grp as a way to bring down the USSR.
Although, interestingly, if something like that were to occur, the US would quickly back such a grp as a way to bring down the USSR.
If the USSR occupied land from which the islamists struck at both the US and USSR, and the US didn't supply the islamists with weapons, would that count?
A different Cold War philosophy might be needed, since that's what we did when the USSR invaded Afghanistan, and assurances would be needed that the Soviets wouldn't try a strangle the US with a lack of oil. And we all know where all the easy oil is...
A different Cold War philosophy might be needed, since that's what we did when the USSR invaded Afghanistan, and assurances would be needed that the Soviets wouldn't try a strangle the US with a lack of oil. And we all know where all the easy oil is...
POD: Lee Harvey Oswald commits suicide in Moscow c. 1958.
1963-John F. Kennedy signs a mutually-beneficial treaty with the U.S.S.R. over space research and exploration
1964-This cooperation, and mutual friendliness leads John Kennedy to victory over the "warmongering" Barry Goldwater.
Eventually, things settle down over Vietnam. How, and to what extent, I know not.
As the decade moves on, the Cold War cools down, atleast on the part of the Americans. This will lead to an opposite approach towards mainland China than the U.S. took IOTL. Here, a more cordial relationship between the U.S. and the Soviets will lead the Americans to lean more towards Moscow with regard to its disputes with China. This probably keeps India on good terms with the Russians (and possibly, the Americans) as well. This could possibly alter Soviet/Israeli relations additionally, but probably not. As such, China looks to Pakistan and the Middle East for friends...
Thus, when future wars and skirmishes flare up in West Asia and northern Africa, China could be actively involved in trying to counter U.S. and Soviet influence in the region, even if it meant siding with Islamists.
1963-John F. Kennedy signs a mutually-beneficial treaty with the U.S.S.R. over space research and exploration
1964-This cooperation, and mutual friendliness leads John Kennedy to victory over the "warmongering" Barry Goldwater.
Eventually, things settle down over Vietnam. How, and to what extent, I know not.
As the decade moves on, the Cold War cools down, atleast on the part of the Americans. This will lead to an opposite approach towards mainland China than the U.S. took IOTL. Here, a more cordial relationship between the U.S. and the Soviets will lead the Americans to lean more towards Moscow with regard to its disputes with China. This probably keeps India on good terms with the Russians (and possibly, the Americans) as well. This could possibly alter Soviet/Israeli relations additionally, but probably not. As such, China looks to Pakistan and the Middle East for friends...
Thus, when future wars and skirmishes flare up in West Asia and northern Africa, China could be actively involved in trying to counter U.S. and Soviet influence in the region, even if it meant siding with Islamists.
Interesting.
Expect the Chinese to aid dissident Muslim groups in the Central Asian SSRs (or something like the devastating terror attack in Red Storm Rising)....and the USA and the USSR encouraging dissident groups in Tibet and Xinjiang.
In such a scenario, I could see both the US and Soviets backing Iraq (if the Iran-Iraq War still happens), which may be enough for Saddam to fully triumph (so we could end up with Saddam as real ally as well....
). I'm interested if TTL's version of the USSR could ever change into something more democratic (with influences from the US)...or, in addition to that, if the USA grows more technocratic and buerecratic as well.
More?
Interesting.
Expect the Chinese to aid dissident Muslim groups in the Central Asian SSRs (or something like the devastating terror attack in Red Storm Rising)....and the USA and the USSR encouraging dissident groups in Tibet and Xinjiang.
In such a scenario, I could see both the US and Soviets backing Iraq (if the Iran-Iraq War still happens), which may be enough for Saddam to fully triumph (so we could end up with Saddam as real ally as well....
I'm interested if TTL's version of the USSR could ever change into something more democratic (with influences from the US)...or, in addition to that, if the USA grows more technocratic and buerecratic as well.
More?
Indeed. All of the above may be plausible. Kuwait may not be independent today. Syria would be interesting ITTL.
Indeed.
Makes you wonder where Israel would fit into all this--I could see the US-Soviet alliance using them as a useful ally against radical Islam (the Soviets allowing their Jews to immigrate there would probably happen as well).
Arafat is likely a gonner in TTL (since he'll be drawn to Islamicism, rather than national liberation) as time goes on in this scenario.
So by 2006, the Middle East is more stable than IOTL, but no more pleasant.....
Indeed.
Makes you wonder where Israel would fit into all this--I could see the US-Soviet alliance using them as a useful ally against radical Islam (the Soviets allowing their Jews to immigrate there would probably happen as well).
Arafat is likely a gonner in TTL (since he'll be drawn to Islamicism, rather than national liberation) as time goes on in this scenario.
So by 2006, the Middle East is more stable than IOTL, but no more pleasant.....
Indeed. And a Weimar-like Social Democracy with SOME respect for liberty could exist as a dominant power in the world, with a bufer of "Finlands", so to speak, to its west.
So, will Syria be in the China camp (perhaps known as the the "Zheng He alliance"?), or the Soviet camp having, in the latter instance, settled its issues with Israel and Lebanon.
The E.U. would be smaller and possibly more cohesive in this ATL as well.
Depends. If Islamicism is seen as a Maoist front group/Shiite-pushed movement (especially if Pakistan and Iran are the two biggest examples in TTL), then Syria is likely to cozy up to the US-Soviet alliance.
The EU will likely be dragooned by the US-Soviet alliance in any action taken against North Africa...so its possible they could be more xenophobic as well.
So, in 2006, the Cold War is still going strong. The Middle East is divided between Iran (firm Chinese ally), Iraq (still under Saddam Hussein--who's grooming Qusay as his heir--Iraq is more prosperous with its oil revenues and no sanctions), Syria (a US-Soviet puppet state), Israel (one of the only real democracies in the region--and more powerful with Gaza and the West Bank absorbed), Jordan (another democratic regime), Palestine (formed in northern Arabia [with Russian and American sponsership) after the devastating Saudi Civil War between the House of Saud and Chinese-backed fanatics in the 1990s), Yeman (a Marxist state which is slowly liberalizing), and the Gulf states--direct US client states. Egypt is also allied to the US-Soviet bloc.
The USA intervened directly in the Philippines to crush Abu Sayef when it formed with Chinese sponsership--the Phillipines are a complete American client state. Taiwan is an island fortress--and also heavily tied to Washington, along with Japan and South Korea.
Something like that? China's allies include Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, Iran, Libya, Eritrea, and Algeria (although they're now the center of the non-alligned movement).
North Africa, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Indonesia are the main sources of Islamic terror.
South America is mostly part of the non-alligned movement...Allende wasn't overthrown, and Chile is part of the US-Soviet alliance. Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, and the Central American countries are under Washington's direct sphere of influence--Haiti is a US Commonwealth (after an invasion to oust Duvalier [in a Politics by other means conflict]) undergoing reconstruction. Cuba is also part of the US-Soviet alliance, since Washington eventually ended the embargo on Castro, who has no love for Beijing's attempts to install a pro-Chinese regime.
Africa and the Middle East, however, remain the center of this constant Cold War.....
How's that?
I think that North Korea would be in the pro-Beijing camp, and that a more likely Palestinian state could be formed on the Sinai and Gaza. This lands Egypt (perhaps confined west of the (Suways Republic?) in the Chinese camp with Libya, Algeria, and Sudan. Perhaps there is greater talk of a cohesive North African Arab state ITTL?
My bad...forgot about the North Koreans....who're little more than a Chinese colony/garrison aimed at South Korea in TTL. The Chinese borders with Mongolia and Siberia are very tense, with raids and gun fights not uncommon. Several border wars have been fought between the PRC and India.
Point taken; the Palestinian state is located in Gaza...with sizable Palestinian communities in Iraq, Jordan, and Egypt (although the regimes in power keep a close eye on them). The Palestinians themselves sympathize with China, but are hemmed in by the looming threat of a crackdown from the countries they live in.
Hmm...a United Arab Republic in North Africa? Possibly, although the US and Soviet Union would do everything possible to break it apart.
As for the rest of Africa, Ethiopia and South Africa are client states of the US-Soviet allaince (the Americans and Russians, as a gesture of "goodwill" assisted the Ethiopians in ending their famine in the '80s, although Eritrea was lost [but Djibouti is a US-Russian ally]).
As for a pro-Chinese organization, how about "The People's Liberation Alliance"?
Anyways, gotta go. Seems we have enough for a real detailed timeline....
On Ethiopia, perhaps the monarchy can be salvaged, with Somalia going into the Pro-China camp. That said, Djibouti will remain as close or closer to France ITTL.
Reality check: WHAT extreme Islam?
You're basically talking "Iran".
The US, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan haven't spun up the major international Islamist militants to fight against the USSR in Afghanistan. It'll be years before the Israelis start to *congratulate* themselves for the switch of some Palestinian support from the pan-Arab nationalist PLO to the supposedly more local and controllable Hamas. Israel hasn't invaded Lebanon and there's no Hezbollah. Iraq is, of course, still a secular dictatorship.
You're basically talking "Iran".
The US, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan haven't spun up the major international Islamist militants to fight against the USSR in Afghanistan. It'll be years before the Israelis start to *congratulate* themselves for the switch of some Palestinian support from the pan-Arab nationalist PLO to the supposedly more local and controllable Hamas. Israel hasn't invaded Lebanon and there's no Hezbollah. Iraq is, of course, still a secular dictatorship.
I don't thionk we are talking about foreign policy at this stage. This more like the attitude that even strongly opposing Western powers in 1900 had towards Anarchism and Communism. By 1980, there are no Islamist states other than Iran, and that came largely as a surprise to all concerned. (Unless you count the tribal Wahhabis on the Peninsula) But there are (and long have been) radical Islamist groups throughout the Muslim world opposing secularisation, opposing pan-Arabism, opposing Socialist and democratic policies, and occasionally resorting to violence against developments they oppose. I could see a situation where, instead of thinking of them as potentially useful stooges in destabilisiong each other's clients, the two superpowers agreed that *this* was not something they wanted any part of. It would basically mean agreeing to not support such groups and allowing their own client states great latitude in cracking down on them the way Egypt did on the Muslim Brotherhood. Add to that a certain degree of 'Who lost China?' paranoia following the revolution in Iran and the Mujahideen might never get beyond snipering the odd Red Army soldier.
But that's just it, Anarchism and Communism were international movements that threatened the western powers and strategically vital countries. In 1980, what we think of as militant Islam was virtually nonexistant outside Iran, and there *was not* an international movement. That's precisely why the Israelis liked Hamas - Islamist movements were local right-wing religious groups whose positions differed from the secular Arab nationalism that the international groups of the time had, and who had few connections to groups in other countries.
You need a much earlier POD and a much different Middle East to get early Islamist movements. They arose mostly where there was a struggle that internationalist movements didn't reach and grassroots organizations were the main centers of resistance. Anti-occupation and anti-dictatorship struggles, primarily.
Um, excuse me? Everything I know of at the time indicates that the rise of that *one* Islamist state came as a gigantic shock to pretty much all concerned.
I can't. That would be a situation unprecedented in the whole history of the cold war, in which both sides would support virtually anyone who was the enemy of their enemy. You'd need some kind of international Islamist movement which was actively fighting both sides, rather than trying to play one off the other. This sounds relatively unlikely.
IIRC the strategic idea at the time was not to get control of Afghanistan - who the hell cared about Afghanistan - but to bleed the Soviets dry because *they* cared about Afghanistan. Which is why the US promptly forgot about the place once the Soviets pulled out. The people in charge didn't worry so much about religious nuts taking over there. And, indeed, that wasn't the ultimate problem - the ultimate problem was something completely outside the normal government/intelligence mindset, that the intelligence and resistence network they were setting up could be turned into the world's most extensive international terrorist network. That wasn't a lesson of Iran. The Iranian revolutionaries took over and set up a country, which then did normal naughty country things like take hostages.
There wasn't a direct precedent for Al Qaeda, and the people who make foreign intervention decisions aren't the type to truly worry about problems without direct precedent. That was one of the major problems of the Cold War - failure to account for risks that couldn't be specifically identified, coming from things like "we're giving extremely sophisticated capabilities to people who are fundamentally opposed to us even if they're allies of the moment".