SEMPRINI
Banned
Essentially what it says on the tin. Obviously, the split between Mosaddegh and the West had fairly deep roots- while I can't profess any great knowledge of the man, his brand of domestic liberal democratic beliefs and anti-colonial nationalism was never going to go down well with London and Washington, and the specific oil-nationalization crisis was at least two years in the making. I'm of the opinion, then, that any scenario where Mosaddegh is in power will inevitably result in some form of crisis with the West.
My question is this: in a scenario where Stalin does not suffer a stroke in March of 1953 (and assuming he lives another 1-2 years), once Mosaddegh nationalises the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, would the US/UK still be able to launch Operation AJAX? Would the threat of how Stalin might react be enough to dissuade Eisenhower from supporting any ventures in Iran? Which of the following scenarios seem the most plausible and how might they be improved?
The US restrains the UK: Essentially analogous to the Suez Crisis of OTL 1956. The US judges Stalin too likely to intervene if a crisis erupts on his border, and refuses to support the UK in what it considers an "antiquated" Imperial adventure. The difference here is that having to buy Iranian oil at market price is a far lesser blow than potentially losing access to the Suez Canal- so the risk of potential war with the Soviets is simply not worth it as far as the Americans are concerned. Result: Mosaddegh remains in power in Iran, the country balances between East and West, Britain loses influence vis-a-vis the USA.
The US refuses to support the UK, the coup still succeeds: Having just concluded the Korean War (or, if Stalin is still alive, the war might still be ongoing), there is little appetite in Washington for something that could all too easily turn into another foreign war, especially right on the border with the Soviet Union. Churchill is left to go it alone. Result: MI6 is able to pull the coup off, albiet by a much smaller margin than OTL, and the Shah's regime is weaker compared to OTL's. Major political concessions will be necessary (probably involving the US whether Eisenhower likes it or not) to avert a Soviet invasion and war with the West, and even in the best-case scenario, Stalin will do everything in his power to destabilise the new regime. Expect the Shah to fall the instant Britain realises it is too bankrupt to support him any longer, and for his fall to be 'messier' than the 1979 Revolution.
The US refuses to support the UK, the coup fails: A more plausible version of the above. The absence of US funding and CIA agents on the ground means the coup fails and Mosaddegh is still in power. It's hard to overstate just what a disaster this would be for Britain's global position- certainly an order of magnitude worse than OTL Suez. Result: Soviet propaganda has a field day and Iran pivots away from the West. Pro-Soviet elements in Iran, first and foremost the Tudeh Party, explode in popularity. American paranoia about losing the country, and by extension the whole Middle East, to Communism become much more pronounced. I imagine the US would do everything in its power to strengthen ties with Iraq and Pakistan as a counterweight (and in the case of the former, as an alternative source of oil- assuming the fields had been discovered by 1953). In some ways, this resembles the situation after OTL 1979 but in a much sharper Cold War context.
The US supports the coup anyway and it succeeds. Stalin lets it happen. Included this one just for the sake of completeness- I think it can be ruled out as Stalin would never tolerate the establishment of what he would perceive as a Western satellite right on his border.
The US supports the coup anyway and it succeeds. Stalin retaliates. Stalin sees the new Iranian regime as an American proxy and a future base from which to attack the Soviet Union and does everything in his power to destabilise it, restarting the Communist/Azeri insurgency in the northwest, sparking "incidents" on the border, etc, possibly even mounting a coup or invading a neutral nation somewhere in retaliation. Result: Serious international crisis, with a real possibility of war breaking out between the superpowers, which lasts until Stalin's death. Area remains a Cold War flashpoint. If the Baath Party comes to power in Iraq, expect the Soviets to make much more serious overtures towards them, possibly even an Iran-Iraq War a decade or so early, but with the superpowers backing opposite sides.
The US supports the coup anyway and it succeeds. Stalin panics and decides to invade. The worst-case scenario, all but guaranteed to bring Soviet and Western personnel into direct conflict and humiliate the West. Eisenhower and Churchill commit to defending the Shah from the Soviets with force if need be. Result: mushroom clouds.
Which of these seems the most plausible? How might I improve on any of these scenarios? Anything major I've missed? Any and all feedback is most welcome. Thanks in advance.
My question is this: in a scenario where Stalin does not suffer a stroke in March of 1953 (and assuming he lives another 1-2 years), once Mosaddegh nationalises the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, would the US/UK still be able to launch Operation AJAX? Would the threat of how Stalin might react be enough to dissuade Eisenhower from supporting any ventures in Iran? Which of the following scenarios seem the most plausible and how might they be improved?
The US restrains the UK: Essentially analogous to the Suez Crisis of OTL 1956. The US judges Stalin too likely to intervene if a crisis erupts on his border, and refuses to support the UK in what it considers an "antiquated" Imperial adventure. The difference here is that having to buy Iranian oil at market price is a far lesser blow than potentially losing access to the Suez Canal- so the risk of potential war with the Soviets is simply not worth it as far as the Americans are concerned. Result: Mosaddegh remains in power in Iran, the country balances between East and West, Britain loses influence vis-a-vis the USA.
The US refuses to support the UK, the coup still succeeds: Having just concluded the Korean War (or, if Stalin is still alive, the war might still be ongoing), there is little appetite in Washington for something that could all too easily turn into another foreign war, especially right on the border with the Soviet Union. Churchill is left to go it alone. Result: MI6 is able to pull the coup off, albiet by a much smaller margin than OTL, and the Shah's regime is weaker compared to OTL's. Major political concessions will be necessary (probably involving the US whether Eisenhower likes it or not) to avert a Soviet invasion and war with the West, and even in the best-case scenario, Stalin will do everything in his power to destabilise the new regime. Expect the Shah to fall the instant Britain realises it is too bankrupt to support him any longer, and for his fall to be 'messier' than the 1979 Revolution.
The US refuses to support the UK, the coup fails: A more plausible version of the above. The absence of US funding and CIA agents on the ground means the coup fails and Mosaddegh is still in power. It's hard to overstate just what a disaster this would be for Britain's global position- certainly an order of magnitude worse than OTL Suez. Result: Soviet propaganda has a field day and Iran pivots away from the West. Pro-Soviet elements in Iran, first and foremost the Tudeh Party, explode in popularity. American paranoia about losing the country, and by extension the whole Middle East, to Communism become much more pronounced. I imagine the US would do everything in its power to strengthen ties with Iraq and Pakistan as a counterweight (and in the case of the former, as an alternative source of oil- assuming the fields had been discovered by 1953). In some ways, this resembles the situation after OTL 1979 but in a much sharper Cold War context.
The US supports the coup anyway and it succeeds. Stalin lets it happen. Included this one just for the sake of completeness- I think it can be ruled out as Stalin would never tolerate the establishment of what he would perceive as a Western satellite right on his border.
The US supports the coup anyway and it succeeds. Stalin retaliates. Stalin sees the new Iranian regime as an American proxy and a future base from which to attack the Soviet Union and does everything in his power to destabilise it, restarting the Communist/Azeri insurgency in the northwest, sparking "incidents" on the border, etc, possibly even mounting a coup or invading a neutral nation somewhere in retaliation. Result: Serious international crisis, with a real possibility of war breaking out between the superpowers, which lasts until Stalin's death. Area remains a Cold War flashpoint. If the Baath Party comes to power in Iraq, expect the Soviets to make much more serious overtures towards them, possibly even an Iran-Iraq War a decade or so early, but with the superpowers backing opposite sides.
The US supports the coup anyway and it succeeds. Stalin panics and decides to invade. The worst-case scenario, all but guaranteed to bring Soviet and Western personnel into direct conflict and humiliate the West. Eisenhower and Churchill commit to defending the Shah from the Soviets with force if need be. Result: mushroom clouds.
Which of these seems the most plausible? How might I improve on any of these scenarios? Anything major I've missed? Any and all feedback is most welcome. Thanks in advance.