I recall reading an article that after 9/11 the Iranian government offered their help to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda , but the Bush administration ignored it. What if Bush had said yes ? Would the Taliban remain vanquished and Bin Laden captured and executed after his trial ? Would we still invade Iraq ? What would Israel's reaction be ?
US/Iranian Alliance post 9/11 ?
- Thread starter scourge
- Start date
Not gonna happen, nope..
Nevermind an Israeli government's reaction, think about The House of Saud. The US even since WWII worked feverishly to establish a close bond and setup Saudi Arabia as a regional power in the Middle East with a family run regime any succeeding administration can rely on and in return top priority in "fair priced" petroleum imports. They are not going to compromise that and court a government that has constantly denounced them, posing the greatest ideological Saudi visa vi American hegemony in the Gulf and held American diplomats hostage, over squashing some Afghan mountain militia.
Nevermind an Israeli government's reaction, think about The House of Saud. The US even since WWII worked feverishly to establish a close bond and setup Saudi Arabia as a regional power in the Middle East with a family run regime any succeeding administration can rely on and in return top priority in "fair priced" petroleum imports. They are not going to compromise that and court a government that has constantly denounced them, posing the greatest ideological Saudi visa vi American hegemony in the Gulf and held American diplomats hostage, over squashing some Afghan mountain militia.
I'm just considering the frame of thought the executive administration and the Pentagon might have had at the time.
Also, you can't discount the strengths and moral of one either as what were the kind of forces that defeated the one of the greatest armies as well as generals in the world at the time around what is today Mississippi in 1812 was mostly made up of.Also the resurgent Taliban today is in a very different position, with a different objective and perhaps one that is advantageous for guerrilla tactics as apposed to the governing responsibilities they held in 2001.
wolf_brother
Banned
Its true. You'd have to have
- an Iranian government that was serious about offering assistance, and
- a Bush that wasn't, well, Bush
- an Iranian government that was serious about offering assistance, and
- a Bush that wasn't, well, Bush
MacCaulay
Banned
Its true. You'd have to have
- an Iranian government that was serious about offering assistance, and
- a Bush that wasn't, well, Bush
According to the PBS series Frontline and an article in Air Forces Monthly, several Iranian air force officers had served with the Northern Alliance in the 1990s flying and maintaining several Su22s that had been seconded to the NA.
During the time, the IRIAF developed several strike target packages that it could undertake if it was ever felt an invasion of Afghanistan was necessary.
Within a week of the attacks, Iranian diplomats in an anti-narcotics task force at the UN (the only official working group with both US and Iranian members) approached the US officials there and informed them they'd be willing to help with target selection. The CIA was obviously a bit skeptical, but agreed. When the Iranians started handing over some of the strike plans they'd drawn up, all the USAF had to do was adjust them to their own weapons.
The Iranians told us where most of the command and control nodes were for the Taliban, and what they didn't know about Al Qaeda was filled in by the CIA team codenamed Jawbreaker when it got on the ground by the end of the month.
MacCaulay
Banned
In many ways, they had been the Iranians' problem longer than they'd been ours. The Taliban regime was very anti-Shiite, and they'd even massacred some Iranian diplomats in a border city in the mid-90s. There was definitely no love lost between the governments of those countries.
I wish I could find the amount of stuff I've dug up on the Iranian involvement in Afghanistan in the 90s. It seems that the almost stepped into the hole that we left, at least as far as the Northern Alliance is concerned.
Thande
Donor
It's probably unfeasible due to Israel (and perhaps PR in general), but I wonder if the Iranians had been openly courted as an ally in Afghanistan, if they might also have been of some assistance with Iraq. Of course, that could backfire--if there was the impression that Iran was helping set up a Shiite-dominated state, that would only pour fuel on the Sunni insurgency.
Mind you if the motivation had been there I suppose Bush as a conservative war hawk would be best qualified to do a 'Nixon in China' with Iran while deflecting criticism.
Mind you if the motivation had been there I suppose Bush as a conservative war hawk would be best qualified to do a 'Nixon in China' with Iran while deflecting criticism.
This is exactly why I came up with this thread. Just to see what would happen if Bush accepted their offer since Iran hated the Taliban.
Wyragen-TXRG4P
Banned
The Talibans have crushed the northern alliance or is in the process of crushing the northern alliance by the time 911 or its TTL equivalent occures, perhapse massoud is turned into barbecue 4 weeks earlier.
No countries neighbouring Afghanistan want to open their borders to US troops and the US does not have the ability to launch an airborne operation overlord.
Well, except Iran, of course. An extensive air campaign begin at first but it proves unconclusive without troops to occupy the ground. Bush eventually agrees, the Iranian army makes most of the ground work then the US moves in to occupy.
The US still wouldn´t want Iran to assist against Saddam Hussein, Iranian influence would contest US one.
No countries neighbouring Afghanistan want to open their borders to US troops and the US does not have the ability to launch an airborne operation overlord.
Well, except Iran, of course. An extensive air campaign begin at first but it proves unconclusive without troops to occupy the ground. Bush eventually agrees, the Iranian army makes most of the ground work then the US moves in to occupy.
The US still wouldn´t want Iran to assist against Saddam Hussein, Iranian influence would contest US one.
Last edited:
Good points all, now my two cents...
I get extremely frustrated with the the US not engaging Iran's moderates ca 2000. Even before 9/11, it looked like Iran was willing to deal (of course, that's based on the news reports I heard, not on hard evidence or intel behind the scenes)
Engaging Iran makes strategic sense. We have many common enemies in the Middle East, and if their moderates were able to show results, assets unfrozen, much more access to investment and development, they might not have so much invested in being a rogue actor in the region.
Hizballah's a major money drain for the Iranians, as is Hamas. Moderates knew that and were willing to use them as a bargaining chip for a better economic deal for themselves and maybe a nice propaganda victory in getting Hamas serious consideration in the Palestinian peace talks. Would that have really hurt us or Israel that much?
Never forget the role Persian pride plays in the games Iran plays as well. They want to be a regional power and after the Iran-Iraq War, have no illusions about the friendliness of the Sunni states across the Persian Gulf. The geo strategic victory of taking the Iranians off the list of threats to tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz and be of aid to developing the energy assets of Central Asia is enough to warrant some consideration of what they offer.
We've done them numerous favors (unintentionally) taking out Saddam, allowing a Shi'a-dominated state to develop in its place, leash Mujahedeen-e-Khalq as well as bitch-slapping the Taliban.
About the only thing we haven't done on the Iranian political wish list is rebuke Israel. I'm NOT advocating doing so, just that the US has already done a lot to make Iran safer without benefit to us. Why not a diplomatic initiative that actually yields us some positives as well?
So with that POD, let's say, we manage to get a working agreement together with the Iranian government ca. 2000. Could you imagine how much better a position we could be in if we had good land routes to Afghanistan and Iranian support, no need to rely on the Pakistanis replying to 9/11? Moreover, the Talibani leadership would be a lot leerier of giving the US and Iran an excuse to
remove them from power. OBL & Co would be a lot more unwelcome. Also, the Iranians would be able to develop their oil and gas reserves, build some refineries at long last to ease their gasoline shortage among other things. Hamas would have to deal, if Iran quits giving them a blank check. Oh and imagine if you will, how feisty Saddam would be when confronted with US-allied Iranians eager to repay him for the casualties of the Iran-Iraq War in 2002? Enough boots on the ground would be the least of our problems.
That's all for now, though I'm sure more will occur to me later.
I get extremely frustrated with the the US not engaging Iran's moderates ca 2000. Even before 9/11, it looked like Iran was willing to deal (of course, that's based on the news reports I heard, not on hard evidence or intel behind the scenes)
Engaging Iran makes strategic sense. We have many common enemies in the Middle East, and if their moderates were able to show results, assets unfrozen, much more access to investment and development, they might not have so much invested in being a rogue actor in the region.
Hizballah's a major money drain for the Iranians, as is Hamas. Moderates knew that and were willing to use them as a bargaining chip for a better economic deal for themselves and maybe a nice propaganda victory in getting Hamas serious consideration in the Palestinian peace talks. Would that have really hurt us or Israel that much?
Never forget the role Persian pride plays in the games Iran plays as well. They want to be a regional power and after the Iran-Iraq War, have no illusions about the friendliness of the Sunni states across the Persian Gulf. The geo strategic victory of taking the Iranians off the list of threats to tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz and be of aid to developing the energy assets of Central Asia is enough to warrant some consideration of what they offer.
We've done them numerous favors (unintentionally) taking out Saddam, allowing a Shi'a-dominated state to develop in its place, leash Mujahedeen-e-Khalq as well as bitch-slapping the Taliban.
About the only thing we haven't done on the Iranian political wish list is rebuke Israel. I'm NOT advocating doing so, just that the US has already done a lot to make Iran safer without benefit to us. Why not a diplomatic initiative that actually yields us some positives as well?
So with that POD, let's say, we manage to get a working agreement together with the Iranian government ca. 2000. Could you imagine how much better a position we could be in if we had good land routes to Afghanistan and Iranian support, no need to rely on the Pakistanis replying to 9/11? Moreover, the Talibani leadership would be a lot leerier of giving the US and Iran an excuse to
remove them from power. OBL & Co would be a lot more unwelcome. Also, the Iranians would be able to develop their oil and gas reserves, build some refineries at long last to ease their gasoline shortage among other things. Hamas would have to deal, if Iran quits giving them a blank check. Oh and imagine if you will, how feisty Saddam would be when confronted with US-allied Iranians eager to repay him for the casualties of the Iran-Iraq War in 2002? Enough boots on the ground would be the least of our problems.
That's all for now, though I'm sure more will occur to me later.
Last edited:
usertron2020
Donor
Many good points have been on this thread, but as I see it, Iran is the poster child for the phrase "The enemy of my enemy is my enemy".
Wouldn't Israel want to deal with the moderates in Iran aswell ? Israel couldn't have been able to take out that nuclear power plant Sadaam was building without Iran allowing them to use their airspace. Allying with another non Arab state besides Turkey would make them feel a little less paranoid too.
Six weeks and it was gone.
The insurgency is a different beast, and I'm not sure how the Iranians could help us much.
archaeogeek
Banned
Gee, I don't know; experience in that terrain, bases that aren't cut half the year by civil war on the pakistani border, the fact that Afghanistan's population is majority ethnically Iranian...
Ummm . . . they Iranians DID try to set up a Shi'ite dominated state in Iraq. Mahdi Militia, JAM, JAM/SG, all got their gear from the IRGC, complete with Iranian advisors. Which WAS one of the things preventing the Sunnis from being all happy-go-lucky about being disarmed by Paul Bremer and crew. Which drove a lot of the Sunni insurgent groups.
Who told you Pashtuns are Iranians? And mountains are mountains, there's nothing magically special about the ones here.
And since the problems are in Pakistan and bordering areas, bases on the other side of the country are only somewhat helpful. Look at the road network in this shithole country for a hint.
archaeogeek
Banned
Pashto, like Persian and Balochi, is an iranian language. The Hazara and Tajik of Afghanistan, significant minorities, speak a dialect of Persian. It's at least better than starting out with barely anyone who even speaks persian, let alone pashto.