A Soviet-US war in the late 1940s over the Middle East's oil reserves

[Futurist]

Hi Futurist,

As you know, I only think "What-Ifs" are only of value if they are based on a reasonable premise. I can't see one here.

Why would there be such a war? The USA and USSR were already the biggest producers of oil and neither was short of reserves.

The logic would be to deny the Middle East's oil reserves to the West, which would be especially crucial once their own oil reserves (such as in the US) will peak.

Russia's perennial drive to try to acquire an ice-free, year-round, accessible port, as mentioned above, seems a more likely premise. Doing so through Iran would necessarily threaten Anglo-American oil fields in the Gulf region.

Russia can view this as a useful bonus to such a war in addition to putting the Middle East's vast oil reserves in friendly hands. I think that the Russian/Soviet people would be more willing to die for oil than for a warm-water port, but that's just my educated guess.

Cheers,

Sid

P.S. Is this the incident that provoked your original question: https://www.history.com/this-day-in-his ... -from-iran

Yes, it was.

[Futurist]

1. Yeah, I was thinking of allowing Soviet troops transit for this--if necessary, in EXTREMELY huge numbers.

2. What if it would have hypothetically been a non-Communist Russia who would have been making this offer to Khomeini?

I think both these would probably founder on the rocks of Persian pride. One of the themes that reinvigorated Khomeini's support in the 70s was the theme that the Shah had reduced Iran to the status of American vassal, or puppet-state. It worked. Eventually the revolution of 1978 became as much a referendum of sorts on Iran's relationships with the outer world. I doubt they would have traded satellite status under America for satellite status under the USSR or even a non-Communist Russia. Mossadegh was regarded as a hero precisely because he wanted Iranian oil to benefit Iranian people, and that opinion wasn't going anywhere. ...

I can give some collaboration to this. Back in the mid 1980s when on active service I was exposed to some of the planning for what amounted to this ME war. One of the points made in the background intel briefings was how the Iranians were just as hostile to the USSR as the US. It was not a matter of Communism. It had to do with a long history of the 'Northern Power' trying to dominate Iran, politically & economically. From the Iranian PoV it did not make much difference who was in charge they wanted the northerners to stay out. They had watched them conquer many other nations and had no interest in letting the camels nose into the tent.

Of course the Iranian leaders did play off the Brits, and later the US vs the Russians/Communists, but they understood they were walking a narrow path there. No one wanted after 1979 to return to the Shaws policy of letting the US influence Irans policies, political or economic.

What about if the Soviets (or, alternatively, a non-Communist Russian regime) would have offered Iran its own Shi'a sphere of influence in the Middle East as well as possibly even territorial expansion (Bahrain, perhaps? Qatar?) in exchange for cooperating with the Soviets (or, again, with a non-Communist Russian regime) in a war of expansion in the Middle East?

[Futurist]

I can give some collaboration to this. Back in the mid 1980s when on active service I was exposed to some of the planning for what amounted to this ME war. One of the points made in the background intel briefings was how the Iranians were just as hostile to the USSR as the US. It was not a matter of Communism. It had to do with a long history of the 'Northern Power' trying to dominate Iran, politically & economically. From the Iranian PoV it did not make much difference who was in charge they wanted the northerners to stay out. They had watched them conquer many other nations and had no interest in letting the camels nose into the tent.

Of course the Iranian leaders did play off the Brits, and later the US vs the Russians/Communists, but they understood they were walking a narrow path there. No one wanted after 1979 to return to the Shaws policy of letting the US influence Irans policies, political or economic.

IIRC, a couple thousand Iranians got killed trying to expel the Soviets and put down their puppet parties in 1946. The culture there has historically seen itself sandwiched between Russian and Arab threats.

More like Russian, Arab, and British threats, no?

[Thumpalumpacus]

More like Russian, Arab, and British threats, no?

Mainly Russian. Stalin didn't want to withdraw as per agreement (six months after the end of WWII), and not only kept Soviet troops in Northern Iran (until Wallied political pressure forced them out), but also supported local Communist and Kurd elements in his intransigence, resulting in internal Iranian conflict. It was really the first application of the Truman Doctrine, thought the IIA did the fighting that resulted. The Peshmerga, as well as Iranian communists, were involved.

The Brits and Americans withdrew on time, more or less, without argument, and the Saudis never had a troop presence in the country, to my knowledge. The Saudis had no forces which could threaten Iran, and even if they had those resources, given American leverage over the House of Saud, would not have used them, I don't think.

[Thumpalumpacus]

What about if the Soviets (or, alternatively, a non-Communist Russian regime) would have offered Iran its own Shi'a sphere of influence in the Middle East as well as possibly even territorial expansion (Bahrain, perhaps? Qatar?) in exchange for cooperating with the Soviets (or, again, with a non-Communist Russian regime) in a war of expansion in the Middle East?

I don't know that the Russians, no matter their political bent (Communist or no), would have had the power to offer that, and I imagine the Iranians on the scene at that time were largely aware of that limitation. In order for that to happen the northerners would have had to deploy such a large number of troops that the Shah's regime would still be discredited as a puppet-state, and such an incursion could possibly provoke a war with the Wallies.

It's only my opinion, but I think such a large force would have provoked armed Iranian resistance, either against the Soviets themselves, or against the Shah and his government that allowed what would amount to an occupation. They almost joined the Axis over the Wallies opening the Persian Corridor in 1943. I can't see attitudes changing that much in just a few years.

[Futurist]

What about if the Soviets (or, alternatively, a non-Communist Russian regime) would have offered Iran its own Shi'a sphere of influence in the Middle East as well as possibly even territorial expansion (Bahrain, perhaps? Qatar?) in exchange for cooperating with the Soviets (or, again, with a non-Communist Russian regime) in a war of expansion in the Middle East?

I don't know that the Russians, no matter their political bent (Communist or no), would have had the power to offer that, and I imagine the Iranians on the scene at that time were largely aware of that limitation. In order for that to happen the northerners would have had to deploy such a large number of troops that the Shah's regime would still be discredited as a puppet-state, and such an incursion could possibly provoke a war with the Wallies.

It's only my opinion, but I think such a large force would have provoked armed Iranian resistance, either against the Soviets themselves, or against the Shah and his government that allowed what would amount to an occupation. They almost joined the Axis over the Wallies opening the Persian Corridor in 1943. I can't see attitudes changing that much in just a few years.

Were the West German and South Korean governments discredited as US puppets when they allowed US troops to be permanently (not even temporarily, but permanently and indefinitely!) be stationed on their territory?

[Thumpalumpacus]

What about if the Soviets (or, alternatively, a non-Communist Russian regime) would have offered Iran its own Shi'a sphere of influence in the Middle East as well as possibly even territorial expansion (Bahrain, perhaps? Qatar?) in exchange for cooperating with the Soviets (or, again, with a non-Communist Russian regime) in a war of expansion in the Middle East?

I don't know that the Russians, no matter their political bent (Communist or no), would have had the power to offer that, and I imagine the Iranians on the scene at that time were largely aware of that limitation. In order for that to happen the northerners would have had to deploy such a large number of troops that the Shah's regime would still be discredited as a puppet-state, and such an incursion could possibly provoke a war with the Wallies.

It's only my opinion, but I think such a large force would have provoked armed Iranian resistance, either against the Soviets themselves, or against the Shah and his government that allowed what would amount to an occupation. They almost joined the Axis over the Wallies opening the Persian Corridor in 1943. I can't see attitudes changing that much in just a few years.

Were the West German and South Korean governments discredited as US puppets when they allowed US troops to be permanently (not even temporarily, but permanently and indefinitely!) be stationed on their territory?

Perhaps, but the relevant response is how the citizens of those countries responded. Did they take up arms against the Americans, or the governments that permitted them in? Not in large numbers, so far as my reading goes. I don't know that their responses in those countries are relevant to the discussion at hand, about Iranian attitudes towards such a move.

That doesn't address the points that 1) Germany was a defeated foe and 2) Americans liberated South Korea from decades of Japanese occupation, which facts inform the different responses of those two, and the hypothetical response of Iranians to a Soviet or Russian incursion or occupation. It's really apples and oranges for several different reasons, it seems to me.

[Futurist]

What about if the Soviets (or, alternatively, a non-Communist Russian regime) would have offered Iran its own Shi'a sphere of influence in the Middle East as well as possibly even territorial expansion (Bahrain, perhaps? Qatar?) in exchange for cooperating with the Soviets (or, again, with a non-Communist Russian regime) in a war of expansion in the Middle East?

I don't know that the Russians, no matter their political bent (Communist or no), would have had the power to offer that, and I imagine the Iranians on the scene at that time were largely aware of that limitation. In order for that to happen the northerners would have had to deploy such a large number of troops that the Shah's regime would still be discredited as a puppet-state, and such an incursion could possibly provoke a war with the Wallies.

It's only my opinion, but I think such a large force would have provoked armed Iranian resistance, either against the Soviets themselves, or against the Shah and his government that allowed what would amount to an occupation. They almost joined the Axis over the Wallies opening the Persian Corridor in 1943. I can't see attitudes changing that much in just a few years.

Were the West German and South Korean governments discredited as US puppets when they allowed US troops to be permanently (not even temporarily, but permanently and indefinitely!) be stationed on their territory?

Perhaps, but the relevant response is how the citizens of those countries responded. Did they take up arms against the Americans, or the governments that permitted them in? Not in large numbers, so far as my reading goes. I don't know that their responses in those countries are relevant to the discussion at hand, about Iranian attitudes towards such a move.

That doesn't address the points that 1) Germany was a defeated foe and 2) Americans liberated South Korea from decades of Japanese occupation, which facts inform the different responses of those two, and the hypothetical response of Iranians to a Soviet or Russian incursion or occupation. It's really apples and oranges for several different reasons, it seems to me.

Well, if Russia will help Shi'a nationalists come to power in Iran, then this could be a reason for gratitude to Russia among Iranian Shi'a nationalists, no?

Maybe it would be best if Russian troops refrained from ever actually entering Tehran--you know, in an attempt to demonstrate that they are NOT a threat to Iran's government (as in, to whatever Iranian government that invites them into Iran in the first place). The primary value of Russian troops going into Iran would be to use Iran as a staging ground for a Russo-Iranian invasion of Iraq, after all.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well, if Russia will help Shi'a nationalists come to power in Iran, then this could be a reason for gratitude to Russia among Iranian Shi'a nationalists, no?

Maybe it would be best if Russian troops refrained from ever actually entering Tehran--you know, in an attempt to demonstrate that they are NOT a threat to Iran's government (as in, to whatever Iranian government that invites them into Iran in the first place). The primary value of Russian troops going into Iran would be to use Iran as a staging ground for a Russo-Iranian invasion of Iraq, after all.

I think the distrust of outsiders would taint any regime installed by the Russians, myself, given Iran's history of being a crossroads of sorts suffering invasions from many different directions. If Russia/USSR were able to install a sympathetic government, sure, it might last a bit, but then you'd still have the US and the UK protesting (perhaps in military form) the stripping of economic influence -- and probably offering support to resistance, given the Cold War politics of the time.

Iranians, in my memory, didn't have a grudge against Iraqis, other than the beef over Shatt-al-Arab. They were certainly wary of Sunni aggression, though that was centuries-old at the time under discussion.

I think Iranians might well be skeptical of fighting, dying, and worse, being used, for the geopolitical aims of the hated Russians, myself. They had and have a strong national identity that I suspect would work against Russian/Soviet aims in the medium-term. Where would that Iraqi oil be going, after all? Who would benefit? Those are questions that would certainly be asked by Iranians. They're not political neophytes.

[Futurist]

Well, if Russia will help Shi'a nationalists come to power in Iran, then this could be a reason for gratitude to Russia among Iranian Shi'a nationalists, no?

Maybe it would be best if Russian troops refrained from ever actually entering Tehran--you know, in an attempt to demonstrate that they are NOT a threat to Iran's government (as in, to whatever Iranian government that invites them into Iran in the first place). The primary value of Russian troops going into Iran would be to use Iran as a staging ground for a Russo-Iranian invasion of Iraq, after all.

I think the distrust of outsiders would taint any regime installed by the Russians, myself, given Iran's history of being a crossroads of sorts suffering invasions from many different directions. If Russia/USSR were able to install a sympathetic government, sure, it might last a bit, but then you'd still have the US and the UK protesting (perhaps in military form) the stripping of economic influence -- and probably offering support to resistance, given the Cold War politics of the time.

Iranians, in my memory, didn't have a grudge against Iraqis, other than the beef over Shatt-al-Arab. They were certainly wary of Sunni aggression, though that was centuries-old at the time under discussion.

I think Iranians might well be skeptical of fighting, dying, and worse, being used, for the geopolitical aims of the hated Russians, myself. They had and have a strong national identity that I suspect would work against Russian/Soviet aims in the medium-term. Where would that Iraqi oil be going, after all? Who would benefit? Those are questions that would certainly be asked by Iranians. They're not political neophytes.

Just how badly do you think that Iranian ayatollahs would want to see ayatollahs likewise be in charge of Iraq, Kuwait, and eastern Saudi Arabia?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Just how badly do you think that Iranian ayatollahs would want to see ayatollahs likewise be in charge of Iraq, Kuwait, and eastern Saudi Arabia?

I suppose that depends on how doable they would see such a project, and whether it would justify the probable conflict with the Wallies, who would certainly attack Soviet/Russian supply lines traversing Iran should war break out.

Remember too that Kuwait was a British protectorate until 1961. The Russians must either invade it, starting a war with the UK and probably US, or avoid it and have it threatening any ops in either Iraq or SA. And we later saw in 1990 what America thinks about folks who try to corner the market on oil.

[Futurist]

Just how badly do you think that Iranian ayatollahs would want to see ayatollahs likewise be in charge of Iraq, Kuwait, and eastern Saudi Arabia?

I suppose that depends on how doable they would see such a project, and whether it would justify the probable conflict with the Wallies, who would certainly attack Soviet/Russian supply lines traversing Iran should war break out.

Remember too that Kuwait was a British protectorate until 1961. The Russians must either invade it, starting a war with the UK and probably US, or avoid it and have it threatening any ops in either Iraq or SA. And we later saw in 1990 what America thinks about folks who try to corner the market on oil.

So, wait until after 1961 before starting this war?

[KDF33]

So, wait until after 1961 before starting this war?

Why would the Soviet Union want to start a war? World War II and its horrors were fresh in both the leadership's memory and that of the population.

The USSR wasn't Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. It was a large country well-endowed with natural resources and with reasonably "normal" people at the helm. Even Stalin, for all his crimes, was cautious in his foreign policy.

Khrushchev was more into brinkmanship but there's little evidence the Soviets ever had any desire for territorial conquest beyond neighboring former Tsarist-held regions - and they had already taken that back.

[Futurist]

So, wait until after 1961 before starting this war?

Why would the Soviet Union want to start a war? World War II and its horrors were fresh in both the leadership's memory and that of the population.

The USSR wasn't Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. It was a large country well-endowed with natural resources and with reasonably "normal" people at the helm. Even Stalin, for all his crimes, was cautious in his foreign policy.

Khrushchev was more into brinkmanship but there's little evidence the Soviets ever had any desire for territorial conquest beyond neighboring former Tsarist-held regions - and they had already taken that back.

Would such a war be much easier to contemplate if France didn't fall back in 1940 and thus World War II would have been MUCH less deadly and devastating for the Soviet Union?

[Thumpalumpacus]

So, wait until after 1961 before starting this war?

If you think the only problem with it is Britain defending Kuwait, sure. As I've pointed out above, there are numerous problems with the scenario that I think render it not only unlikely to succeed, but unlikely to carry Iranian domestic support.