Tehran 1979: Increased Marines presence at the US embassy?

Euroman26

What if lets say the CIA had discovered the weakness of the Shah's regime in time? And had been able to convince Carter to strengthen the Marine-guard at the US embassy in Tehran? And this Marine-guard had been given free hands to protect the embassy and its staff at all costs? And lets say that this Marine-guard is able to hold of the attacks on the embassy with brute force for several hours, with massive casualties on the Iranian side. Al the while US Army helicopters during the first night is able to evacute the entire staff from the US embassy. An operation with only few calsualties on the US-side.

Could this have given Carter his second term?
 

Torqumada

Are there any US army bases within 150 miles of Tehran in 1979? The Huey has a 315 mile range and Chinook has a 400 mile range.

Torqumada
 

Euroman26

Torqumada said:
Are there any US army bases within 150 miles of Tehran in 1979? The Huey has a 315 mile range and Chinook has a 400 mile range.

Torqumada
Click to expand...

How far would the flight from a carrier parked in the water outside of Iran have been then? Or at that time Saddam was US friendly and maybe he would have allowed such an air rescue to start from Iraq?
 

nbcman

Donor
Tehran to the closest part of the Gulf near the Shatt al Arab is over 400 miles. A realistic distance from Tehran to location in the Gulf where a CV group would be is closer to 500 miles.
 

Euroman26

So if my scenario had happened and the heavily armed Marines are able to hold the embassy for 24 hours. From where and how would you the staff out?
 

DStecks

Euroman26 said:
and possibility a second term?
Click to expand...

I really can't comment, since this is basically the scenario of my TL, Jesus Walks, and the 1980 elections are just around the corner. :p

It's different enough that I can say that Carter would probably fight tooth and nail to not let it turn into a war. The public would still likely view him as being completely out of his depth for allowing the attack to happen, even if it was a decisive American victory. And Reagan can still ream him on the economy.

If it fails, the Iranians might try to save face by disavowing the attackers, but there is still the issue that US Marines just massacred a crowd of students; so US-Iran relationships will deteriorate rapidly on both sides, that's if the US doesn't cut ties immediately after the attack.

I really don't see how this could lead directly to a second Carter term. Carter wouldn't want a war, and neither would America that soon after Vietnam without a damn good reason. In my TL the damn good reason is that the hostages are killed, and the Iranian Hostage Crisis becomes the Iranian Embassy Massacre. In a scenario where local rebels attacked the embassy unsuccessfully, there would be little political or popular will for a war. Carter would not likely be able to use the attack to his advantage come campaign season.

So, in conclusion, it is my opinion that the scenario you present would not make a Carter re-election any more likely than OTL (which is still more likely than most people think).
 
Mr_ Bondoc

Mr_ Bondoc

Euroman26 said:
and possibility a second term?
Click to expand...
Nope, he has created a massacre of demonstrators, created a war in the Middle East, just as the Soviet Union is invading Afghanistan, destroyed the reputation of the United States as a defender of human rights in the region, given justificiation for future suicid terrorist attacks (e.g. 1983 Beirut Bombing) and forced the United States to align itself with a sadistic Third World dictator....
 

Euroman26

DStecks said:
I really can't comment, since this is basically the scenario of my TL, Jesus Walks, and the 1980 elections are just around the corner. :p

It's different enough that I can say that Carter would probably fight tooth and nail to not let it turn into a war. The public would still likely view him as being completely out of his depth for allowing the attack to happen, even if it was a decisive American victory. And Reagan can still ream him on the economy.

If it fails, the Iranians might try to save face by disavowing the attackers, but there is still the issue that US Marines just massacred a crowd of students; so US-Iran relationships will deteriorate rapidly on both sides, that's if the US doesn't cut ties immediately after the attack.

I really don't see how this could lead directly to a second Carter term. Carter wouldn't want a war, and neither would America that soon after Vietnam without a damn good reason. In my TL the damn good reason is that the hostages are killed, and the Iranian Hostage Crisis becomes the Iranian Embassy Massacre. In a scenario where local rebels attacked the embassy unsuccessfully, there would be little political or popular will for a war. Carter would not likely be able to use the attack to his advantage come campaign season.

So, in conclusion, it is my opinion that the scenario you present would not make a Carter re-election any more likely than OTL (which is still more likely than most people think).
Click to expand...

Didn't know about your scenario until now :)

How would you (or any of you other guys) have gotten the Americans frem embassy out of Iran? After the Marines have held the grounds for 24 hours?
 
Last edited:

Blackfox5

It really depends on what happens when the Marines shoot the attackers (not demonstrators, as the Marines would never have fired on demonstrators outside the compound, only those who were attacking the embassy - at some point you stop being a demonstrator!). There are several scenarios.

1) Marines open fire when the Iranians first come over the wall, and it scares off the Iranians. Perhaps some wounded, but no deaths. Iranians withdraw. Most likely the US evacuates most of its embassy staff as the provisional Iranian government put guards around the embassy to prevent a further crisis.

2) Marines open fire when Iranians come over the wall. The attackers are inside the compound, but not able to gain access to the buildings. There may or may not be any dead Iranians depending on when the Marines decide to employ lethal force (when the Iranians go over the wall? or only if the Iranians attempt to storm the building?) Building is surrounded by a mob of Iranians, but the time delay is enough for the White House to negotiate with the Iranian government. At this point, it's either war or the embassy is evacuated in cooperation with the Iranian provisional government. Presumably the provisional government has difficulties dispersing the mob, but could be successful.

3) Marines open fire, but the Iranians are able to enter the main building. Blood bath ensues. If the Iranians gain access to the building, it's very hard to see how the Marines can hold out for 24 hours. Eventually you run out of bullets. Only if they kill enough Iranians quickly enough that the mob flees in terror and the Marines are able to seal the building again. Same result as #2, but far more likely to lead to war.

The Iranian provisional government had very little control of their country at this point. Khomeini was still a highly regarded outsider who was not part of the government, but building his own revolutionary force. Does he think it benefits him if there is a war with the US at this time?

Whether Carter gains a second term really depends on how well he handles the crisis. If it is resolved peacefully with the entire embassy staff returned and the US holds its head high, then he'll likely win a second term. If there is any kind of screw up, he likely loses.
 

redlightning

Banned
If there are more marines then the guards will probably not open the door to try and reason with them as that's how they got in in the first place. This gives time for the embassy staff to destroy all the documents that they need and evacuate the embassy if there are helicopters close by to remove the staff and remove them to a military base. Or they could open fire on the rioting crowd and then create an even more tense standoff where the Americans who opened fired are arrested, tried, and then executed by Iran. This could start a war between the two nations easily.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Euroman26 said:
What if lets say the CIA had discovered the weakness of the Shah's regime in time? And had been able to convince Carter to strengthen the Marine-guard at the US embassy in Tehran? And this Marine-guard had been given free hands to protect the embassy and its staff at all costs? And lets say that this Marine-guard is able to hold of the attacks on the embassy with brute force for several hours, with massive casualties on the Iranian side. Al the while US Army helicopters during the first night is able to evacute the entire staff from the US embassy. An operation with only few calsualties on the US-side.

Could this have given Carter his second term?
Click to expand...
The optimal strategy if the CIA was convinced the fall of the Shah which would require additional firepower at the embassy was inevitable was simply to evacuate the embassy: plain and simple. Trying to setup a bloodbath is really stupid and works to no one's advantage.

Actually -that- might give Carter a second term.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Euroman26 said:
How would you (or any of you other guys) have gotten the Americans frem embassy out of Iran? After the Marines have held the grounds for 24 hours?
Click to expand...
There's a pretty strong chance you can't.

Eagle's claw was launched with months of preparation (including released hostages providing detailed situation reports) and ended up being aborted well before Delta force reached Tehran. In 1979 you are going to launch helicopters from....where exactly with....24 hours of notice to be generous? You can't get to Tehran without refueling on the way, how is that going to be done? Historically this was attempted at desert one which was scouted out weeks/month ago and yet still turned out into a disaster anyway. What military force is going to carry this out with minimal situation awareness and none of the training which historically went into Eagle's claw? Keep in mind you need to do this within like a few days.
 
Last edited:

Paul V McNutt

Banned
If somehow the embassy staff gets out and there is no hostage crisis Carter still loses do to the bad economy. rReagan's margin is lower. hHe does not enjoy the psychological advantage of being declared the winner at 8 pm. tThere is a Democratic Senate but enough conservative Southern Democrats vote for Reagan's tax and budget proposals to ensure passage.
 

Riain

Banned
Just a word on the carrier and helicopters. IIRC no USN carrier entered the Persian gulf until 1990, its too shallow and narrow, a CBG will cross the width of it in less than an hour at aircraft launching speed. Hold the embassy for a day will not allow helicopter rescue to a carrier.
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
Euroman26 said:
What if lets say the CIA had discovered the weakness of the Shah's regime in time? And had been able to convince Carter to strengthen the Marine-guard at the US embassy in Tehran? And this Marine-guard had been given free hands to protect the embassy and its staff at all costs? And lets say that this Marine-guard is able to hold of the attacks on the embassy with brute force for several hours, with massive casualties on the Iranian side. Al the while US Army helicopters during the first night is able to evacute the entire staff from the US embassy. An operation with only few calsualties on the US-side.

Could this have given Carter his second term?
Click to expand...

The embassy grounds had already been invaded by demonstrators earlier during the revolution. Those people came in and left soon enough in a 'peaceful' temporary occupation. That was during the overthrow of the Shah.
IMHO, the US already knew that the Provisional Government was weak but didn't want to inflame tensions by beefing-up security.
A rescue operation the next morning if there is a larger Marine force... not a chance. Look at the situation with the consulate in Libya late last year to see how that couldn't even be done in 2012. Logistics, geo-politics and the situation on the ground all make this impossible.
 

Alien and Sedition Bat

Mr_ Bondoc said:
Nope, he has created a massacre of demonstrators, created a war in the Middle East, just as the Soviet Union is invading Afghanistan, destroyed the reputation of the United States as a defender of human rights in the region, given justificiation for future suicid terrorist attacks (e.g. 1983 Beirut Bombing) and forced the United States to align itself with a sadistic Third World dictator....
Click to expand...

You are talking about 1979. The U.S. had no reputation as a defender of human rights in the region but as a defender of authoritarian dictators and monarchs. Also, the U.S. was supporting and training torturers and death squads throughout Latin America and in parts of Asia and Africa (remember Mobutu in Zaire and the would-be Angolan warlord Savimbi?). And the U.S. was remarkably protective of apartheid South Africa in a sly way. A shootout in Iran wouldn't have fundamentally changed perceptions of the U.S.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top