What if Iran had executed their American hostages?

[Korean]

Question for everyone.

What would have happened if, during the Iran Hostage Crisis, the Iranians had executed some or all their American hostages?

Let say due to misunderstood orders or the actions of an Alien Space Bat, the Iranian guards received and carried out orders to execute half or all their American hostages?

The Iranian government, who were still negotiating with the United States over the release of the hostages, did not actually order the executions and are just as shocked as the United States when they and the international media hear of the executions.

 

[Logan2879]

Question for everyone.

What would have happened if, during the Iran Hostage Crisis, the Iranians had executed some or all their American hostages?

Let say due to misunderstood orders or the actions of an Alien Space Bat, the Iranian guards received and carried out orders to execute half or all their American hostages?

The Iranian government, who were still negotiating with the United States over the release of the hostages, did not actually order the executions and are just as shocked as the United States when they and the international media hear of the executions.

Then all hell breaks loose. Iran is going to be invaded any many iranian are dead meat.

 

[wtw]

Tehran is flattened, Iran's military destroyed, oil and gas installations gone. Iran as a state stops existing.

 

[Theoretical_TJ]

That's really debatable that the reaction would be that strong. It's a blow to US national prestige, but the 1979 US was in no mood to fight a war (and had less confidence in its ability to actually win it).

 

[theg*ddam*hoi2fan]

That's really debatable that the reaction would be that strong. It's a blow to US national prestige, but the 1979 US was in no mood to fight a war (and had less confidence in its ability to actually win it).

I don't think they'd fight a war...they'd just send in aircraft to bomb everything even remotely military for a week straight. Then finish and give the nod to Saddam to do what he wanted to his now-weakened enemy.

 

[CalBear]

That's really debatable that the reaction would be that strong. It's a blow to US national prestige, but the 1979 US was in no mood to fight a war (and had less confidence in its ability to actually win it).

Actually the U.S. was very confident in one thing. Back then I think they still called it Snap Count.

Fortunately the Iranians never forced the issue. It would have been a f###ing nightmare.

 

[HistoricalNinja]

Well let's see here: would it have happened if Carter were president? Cause if they executed them whilst he was still running things, then he'd have probably just tried talking to them and all.....which would have been the preferable action, since Carter was not a war president. He wasn't really a good president. period. Now if it had been during Reagan's era, then there's a good chance that one of two solutions would have come about (I say two, because it depends if the moral anchor of Bush senior is his VP or not) option A or Bush being the good cop is that we deploy a few fleets to the mid east and a few bombers. Strategic bombings and strikes within a time frame and Iran is given a choice of either becoming a hole in the ground or a chance to surrender and become a client state watched over by a joint coalition. Option B or Reagan going all "The Gipper" is that he calls for a nuke strike and takes out Iran......thereby starting WW3

 

[John Dusk]

Actually the U.S. was very confident in one thing. Back then I think they still called it Snap Count.

Fortunately the Iranians never forced the issue. It would have been a f###ing nightmare.

Would the US go as far as to physically invade Iran?

Or would it just be limited to bombing?

 

[Whiteshore]

I could see a Pahlavi restoration immediately afterwards.

 

[Don Corleone]

Well let's see here: would it have happened if Carter were president? Cause if they executed them whilst he was still running things, then he'd have probably just tried talking to them and all.....which would have been the preferable action, since Carter was not a war president. He wasn't really a good president. period. Now if it had been during Reagan's era, then there's a good chance that one of two solutions would have come about (I say two, because it depends if the moral anchor of Bush senior is his VP or not) option A or Bush being the good cop is that we deploy a few fleets to the mid east and a few bombers. Strategic bombings and strikes within a time frame and Iran is given a choice of either becoming a hole in the ground or a chance to surrender and become a client state watched over by a joint coalition. Option B or Reagan going all "The Gipper" is that he calls for a nuke strike and takes out Iran......thereby starting WW3

Reagan hated nukes. Can't see him using them. He was more along the lines of "have a big bad military so we don't have to use it". He invaded Grenada but didn't launch any war efforts on the scale of his successors. The Bushes both invaded Iraq and Daddy Bush forced regime change in Panama. Clinton intervened in the Balkans.

If the hostages had been murdered, there would likely have been a large coalition backing us up. Embassies are off limits, so the ayatollahs would have instantly become war criminals (which they were anyway, but the hostages functioned as shields while alive).

 

[Theoretical_TJ]

Reagan hated nukes. Can't see him using them. He was more along the lines of "have a big bad military so we don't have to use it". He invaded Grenada but didn't launch any war efforts on the scale of his successors. The Bushes both invaded Iraq and Daddy Bush forced regime change in Panama. Clinton intervened in the Balkans.

If the hostages had been murdered, there would likely have been a large coalition backing us up. Embassies are off limits, so the ayatollahs would have instantly become war criminals (which they were anyway, but the hostages functioned as shields while alive).

Yeah, doing it to an embassy is one of the most antagonizing things for a state actor to do. Nukes wouldn't fly, especially under Reagan. One thing is clear, it wouldn't get proxy war status from either China or Russia.

 

[Ak-84]

The Tehran Embassy was one of the major CIA centers in the region; the Iranians were not lying when they said it was "A den of spies". One of the reasons that OTL international response was so relatively muted.

I don't see invasions or even bombings, in 1979 except for Turkey (who may or may not want to get involved) there are no good bases for the US to launch strikes from.
I do see a few "accidental" airliner shootdowns like with the USS Vincennes and Iran Air 655 a decade later.

 

[TRH]

Couldn't Saddam's Iraq provide air bases? I'd hope so, because the descriptions I keep seeing about the American military in 1980 make us seem like we'd get our teeth kicked in invading the Bahamas. Probably better to keep our distance.

 

[A Most Sovereign Lady]

A lot of Persians die.

 

[Clandango]

Executing in those very words? Hmmm, wouldn't be the most calm of responses. People believed the students who took the hostages to have the support of the government, right? Because, yah, students can't keep hostages publicly if the police don't allow it. Maybe they die trying to escape in Operation Eagle Claw? Otherwise, I am wondering what grounds there would be to kill all the hostages. These weren't terrorists, after all. And if they were, they would kill one to make an example and have their demands met. You would need the Americans trying to assassinate important officials, invade, or support Kurdish revolts, Baluchi separatists, and Iraqi invasions to make them decide to just shoot the hostages.

I also wonder what sort of an effect this would have on future hostage crisises such as in Lebanon.
And further more, would people put the responsibility of this for people being Muslim, Shia, Persian, or Iranian? Yah, lot of overlap in the groups, but I am wondering how far the blame would spread, since I don't know how people viewed the differences between denominations, nationalities, and ethnic groups in the Middle East back then.

 

[PhilippeO]

I dont think the response would be that strong. Iranian hostage crisis prolonged situation is the thing that make it famous. Embassy (including US embassy) had suffer attack and casualties before and after. There certainly condemnation, and possible limited bombing. but overall its not unique situation that would make War inevitable.

even if killing happen after Iran hostage crisis attract attention and become famous, it might solve crisis earlier : by international pressure to release surviving hostage and economic sanction.

 

[jmc247]

Carter will condemn it, but my guess is he will leave office saying I kept us out of war.

Reagan will approve a limited bombing mission like with Gaddafi and might provide more aid to Iraq during the war, but just remember after nearly 300 Marines were killed by the IRGC by proxy on a UN mission what did we do?

America was still so deep into Vietnam syndrome then that other then of a limited package of air strikes not much was going to happen.

Now if Iran sawed of the heads one by one of the Americans and filmed in Zarqawi style for the nightly news (something not in their nature even at the high point of Revolutionary extremism) then you see the package the Pentagon presented of lighting up Iran with B-52s ok'ed, but that wasn't their style. Even if they killed them they would say there was a big attempt to escape and they died in the attempt.

They were fanatical chess players though not suicidal. Everything they did was fairly calculated to provoke us, but short of getting us to attack them. They weren't after a major war like our more modern opponents who took the fights to American cities and had Americans watching their civilians be executed in their living rooms.

 

[sloreck]

The folks taken hostage were not military like the Marines in Beirut - when you take the King's shilling getting killed is always a possibility. An embassy is considered sovereign territory, merely breaking in to one and taking the folks inside prisoner is legally an act of war. EVERY embassy is a "den of spies", using an embassy to control illegals and having some diplomatic personnel be intelligence officers is normal. With that as justification the students of Georgetown and other DC area universities could break in to the Russian embassy in DC and take them all hostage and ransack the place - is that embassy not a "den of spies"??

It is one thing when you have a place without an effective government, like Lebanon in 1983, where a terrorist organization attacks a military force. It is quite another when a government is involved in the sacking of an embassy and the taking of hostages who have diplomatic status (including the Marine guards btw). Only those who were mentally retarded believed that the Iranian government was not supporting the "students" 100%. It is worth noting that in WWII the Germans, Italians, and Japanese returned diplomats to the USA when a state of war happened (and the USA did likewise) - that was normal behavior. If the Iranians executed Americans taken hostage, especially of half or all of them were killed there is absolutely no way that Khomeini could get away with "the students did it".

I have no love for Carter, but even he could not do nothing and survive, not just re-election but potential impeachment. IMHO the USA would probably use conventional weapons, not nukes, but severely trash Iranian oil infrastructure and other military targets as well as sink anything with an Iranian flag that floated, impose a complete embargo of air traffic except designated neutral flights etc. An invasion, not likely. Unlike OTL where Iranian seized assets were frozen but not completely seized, I expect anything the USA could get its hands on would be taken and used to compensate families and pay for the bombs dropped on Iran.

The USA looked bad enough the way things went down OTL. To let a country get away with seizing your embassy, imprisoning your diplomats, and then killing them - you just can't let that go unpunished. A slap on the wrist won't do, it is worth than nothing, a large can of whoop-ass must be opened.

 

[Ariosto]

Anyone who says we would do anything more than a limited bombing campaign or maybe send more military supplies to Iraq during the Iraq-Iran War obviously doesn't know much about foreign policy. I mean really, do you think that the world is going to stand idly by and say its fine if we drop a nuclear weapon on Tehran? That we raze it to the ground? Any sympathy we might have had would go immediately out the window.​

 

[Dave Howery]

I do see a few "accidental" airliner shootdowns like with the USS Vincennes and Iran Air 655 a decade later.

good God, no, the US isn't going to target airliners. There are a whole lot of pure military targets they could target instead.