Peace terms in a 1982 Iran-Iraq war Iranian victory?

[Linkwerk]

I have been playing around with the idea for a TL where the Iranian revolution plays out differently and the post-Shah government is an Islamic Socialist regime that is less immediately fanatical than Khomeini and more committed to pursuing long-term social change within in Iran. IOTL, Iraq sent out peace feelers after the 1982 Iranian offensive liberated almost all Iranian territory. The feelers were rejected in favor of jang ta piroozi - "war until victory" on behalf of Khomeini, which is to say, an attempt to invade Iraq with an army of volunteer light infantry and completely overthrow Saddam to install a sister Islamic republic. The war would continue for six more years and cost hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of dollars for both countries. The failure to end the war then is a big What If for Middle Eastern politics.

So what if? For the purposes of this TL the following things are true:

-Iran is governed by a broad coalition of leftist and Islamic socialist political forces who want to, fundamentally, get Saddam off their backs so they can implement radical economic changes domestically and shake out a clear winner among the factions. There is not much of a base for the full overthrow of Saddam right now via conventional force of arms. Nobody is shouting "Karbala we are coming!" and although there is interest in fomenting revolutionary struggle against Saddam that is considered to be a long-term project.

-The USSR is salivating at the prospect of Iran becoming a full client state and is absolutely willing to throw historical ally Iraq under the bus to win Iranian favor. (OTL they were NOT happy with Saddam at this point)

-The Iranian revolutionary government is not attempting to replace the Iranian military with a new army of Revolutionary Guards, but is rather invested in reshaping the Shah's military into a workers and peasants army loyal to the new government. Ancien Regime officers are often still in place as military-technical experts under the watchful eye of commissars, and there is extensive folding of zealous revolutionary militias into the military, but the ATL Pasdaran consisting of ex-anti Shah guerillas and urban revolutionaries is operationally integrated into the regular army and has a professional leadership cadre of leftist militants. The ATL Iranian army performs much better than OTL, but still struggles with conventional military operations and maintaining US equipment.

-Iraq is broadly the same internally, although much more worried about leftists and scrambling to co-opt Shi'a identity against Iranian "atheist" revolutionaries. Saddam is still in charge although the speed of the Iranian offensives is causing open discontent among some Baath party officials.

-The war 1980-81 broadly goes the same as ATL with the Iranians taking 18+ months to get their act together. The 1982 offensives go better than OTL and when peace feelers by Iraq are extended the Iranians have expelled all Iraqi forces, sized the Al-Fao peninsula, and are threatening Basra with a northward encirclement to cut the Basra-Baghdad highway.


In this sort of general situation- I'm just sketching out the TL because that is how I've thought about it- what would Iranian peace terms even be? They've got Iraq on the back foot, Iraq wants out, but they don't want to conquer Iraq or overthrow the government. The war has still been bloody and long and will have a place in ATL revolutionary Islamic Socialist mythos (a Great Patriotic Jihad, if you will) so there will be a demand for something but....what were the maximalist Iranian terms about the Shatt Al-Arab, anyway?

Would war reparations in an ATL 1980's even seem plausible? Making this a plausible outcome really puzzles me when you get down to the details.

 

[Monk78]

USSR plays the Shia Sunni card , promises Iran more support in exchange Iranians start a Shia Sunni infighting amongst the afghan insurgents

 

[CV12Hornet]

Well, the obvious term is reinstatement, with much more solid backing, of terms agreed upon under the Algiers Agreement:

The Algiers Agreement placed the border between Iraq and Iran in the center of the main channel of the Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud) waterway, usually called the thalweg.[13] Iraq was required to abandon its claim to Arab areas in Western Iran. The two countries were required to commit themselves to maintain close and effective supervision over their common boundary and to end any intervention in the other's territory. Iran was therefore required to end any support for the Kurds. Both countries agreed to being good neighbors. A violation of one part of the agreement "contradicts the spirit of Algiers Agreement."

This was what Iraq was intending to repudiate with their invasion.

I'd also expect the following to be answered:

On 10 September 1980, Iraq forcibly reclaimed territories in Zain al-Qaws and Saif Saad that it had been promised under the terms of the 1975 Algiers Agreement but that Iran had never handed over, leading to both Iran and Iraq declaring the treaty null and void, on 14 September and 17 September, respectively. As a result, the only outstanding border dispute between Iran and Iraq at the time of the Iraqi invasion of 22 September was the question of whether Iranian ships would fly Iraqi flags and pay Iraq navigation fees for a stretch of the Shatt al-Arab river spanning several miles.[108][109]

The answers being: yes, Iran gets to keep those territories, and no, no flags/tolls. Hell, there's a good chance Iraqi ships will now need to pay tolls, at least for a specific, set amount of time.

That, I believe, would take the place of any indemnity: Iran gets to charge tolls on a stretch of the Shatt al-Arab for, say, 25 years.

 

[Linkwerk]

Well, the obvious term is reinstatement, with much more solid backing, of terms agreed upon under the Algiers Agreement:

The answers being: yes, Iran gets to keep those territories, and no, no flags/tolls. Hell, there's a good chance Iraqi ships will now need to pay tolls, at least for a specific, set amount of time.

That, I believe, would take the place of any indemnity: Iran gets to charge tolls on a stretch of the Shatt al-Arab for, say, 25 years.

Interesting- so not quite a status quo ante bellum, but a status quo to 1975? That kind of control over the Shatt Al-Arab, especially a de facto veto over Iraqi use of the waterway and a payment of tolls, would be satisfactory to the ATL Iranian govt. The Iraqi retreat from all territories and anl unpleasant recognition of the international boundary at the thalweg would hold, I think. The ATL Iraqi military would be on the verge of total collapse around Basra and this would be relatively face saving. The USSR could make a big show of making itself the mediator.

Now the Algiers agreement holding past a few years, especially the provisions about Iranian support for the PUK/KDP...well, ha ha. That probably won't last. But that is more about a different Iran and not the peace terms

USSR plays the Shia Sunni card , promises Iran more support in exchange Iranians start a Shia Sunni infighting amongst the afghan insurgents

If I get around to writing this ATL, a Soviet aligned(ish) Iran which hammers out a functioning Islamic Socialism would make Afghanistan's 1980s unrecognizable and while I don't see a lot of butterflies for Saddam if the Iranian revolution turned out differently, the same doesn't go for the rest of the region.

As the 80's of this TL wear on what I have sketched out is a clear and quick-ish Iranian victory scares the crap out of the Gulf States and the US (ATL Iran is not any less anti American) and there is a panic about Iran exporting the revolution (ironically) so Saddam spins the war as actually a heroic defense of the Arab world from the Iranian hordes who are simultaneously both heretics corrupting Islam and atheists. Saudi Arabia jumps in with the $$$$ and Saddam rearms with French, Chinese, Brazilian, South African, and Yugoslav weapons and a vicious Gulf cold war starts. Iran settles into a tense distant-but-cooperative partnership with the USSR and is given considerable assistance in building capacity to deny the Gulf to the US. The USSR and Iran pursue complimentary policies in Afghanistan (while vying for influence) which co-opts a lot of support for the Mujahedeen BUT leads the Afghan civil war to take on a nasty ethnic dimension while never becoming as intense as OTL (there are no large Soviet regular forces committed).

Iranian society, economy, leadership, etc is totally different and outside the scope of this thread but that's where I need to do the most research because its the biggest divergence.

Then in the late 80's things get really weird.

 

[CV12Hornet]

If I get around to writing this ATL, a Soviet aligned(ish) Iran which hammers out a functioning Islamic Socialism would make Afghanistan's 1980s unrecognizable and while I don't see a lot of butterflies for Saddam if the Iranian revolution turned out differently, the same doesn't go for the rest of the region.

As the 80's of this TL wear on what I have sketched out is a clear and quick-ish Iranian victory scares the crap out of the Gulf States and the US (ATL Iran is not any less anti American) and there is a panic about Iran exporting the revolution (ironically) so Saddam spins the war as actually a heroic defense of the Arab world from the Iranian hordes who are simultaneously both heretics corrupting Islam and atheists. Saudi Arabia jumps in with the $$$$ and Saddam rearms with French, Chinese, Brazilian, South African, and Yugoslav weapons and a vicious Gulf cold war starts. Iran settles into a tense distant-but-cooperative partnership with the USSR and is given considerable assistance in building capacity to deny the Gulf to the US. The USSR and Iran pursue complimentary policies in Afghanistan (while vying for influence) which co-opts a lot of support for the Mujahedeen BUT leads the Afghan civil war to take on a nasty ethnic dimension while never becoming as intense as OTL (there are no large Soviet regular forces committed).

Iranian society, economy, leadership, etc is totally different and outside the scope of this thread but that's where I need to do the most research because its the biggest divergence.

Then in the late 80's things get really weird.

I'd read it. The possibilities are grand. I'm imagining Iranian Backfires and salivating.

How much of Iran's inherited Western kit was shipped off to the Soviets for them to take apart?

 

[Monk78]

I'd read it. The possibilities are grand. I'm imagining Iranian Backfires and salivating.

How much of Iran's inherited Western kit was shipped off to the Soviets for them to take apart?

Iran is a historical enemy of Russia so no backfires probably
Maybe just more tanks APC small arms and possibly mig fighters
And Tom cooper has said no F14s were sent to ussr , but who know how much of that is true

 

[Dave Howery]

the Tanker War wouldn't happen, something that would be to Iran's benefit as well. One issue is if Saddam is still looking for cash/plunder after the war and sets his sights on Kuwait as he did in OTL...

 

[Gillan1220]

Iran is a historical enemy of Russia so no backfires probably
Maybe just more tanks APC small arms and possibly mig fighters
And Tom cooper has said no F14s were sent to ussr , but who know how much of that is true

Iran also has F-4 Phantoms, F-5s, AH-1 Cobras, and Sidewinder missiles. None were turned over to the USSR since Tehran saw Moscow as another threat.

 

[Linkwerk]

I'd read it. The possibilities are grand. I'm imagining Iranian Backfires and salivating.

How much of Iran's inherited Western kit was shipped off to the Soviets for them to take apart?

Haha, on man you read my mind. I'm philosophically interested in this TL because it would be about Ali Shariati living to become the figurehead of the Iranian revolution and fundamentally change both Socialism and Islamism in the late 20th century, as well as an Iranian revolution which led to an expansive cultural flowering instead of a grim period of closed censorship.

BUT

The gearhead in me also salivates. I'm imagining that the Soviets get 2-3 Tomcats- two to tear apart and one to fly- and a bunch of Phoenixes along with similar numbers of Phantoms and F-5s. Apparently a lot of Mig-31 development was already underway and Su-27 was already plying but I imagine this would have a lot of repercussions for fighter upgrade and missile design trajectories. Ground equipment would be all over and there would absolutely be regular dissimilar air combat training and other drills.

I haven't made up my mind if the Iranians would get Backfires - at least not during the 80's- but I'm envisioning antisub frigates, the building up of an Iranian littoral submarine force and later Kilos, land-based supersonic antiship missiles on Qeshm island, and a lot of mines and minelayers as well as a regiment of naval strike Fencers and lots of support for getting antiship capacity onto Phantoms. Top it off with some Ropuchas and help maintaining existing Iranian hovercraft to directly threaten the small gulf states with amphibious landings.

The most interesting thing to me would be the late 80's early 90's recapitalization/upgrade of Iranian equipment taking into account a much smaller (if any) Iran-Contra arms transfer, and a close military relationship with the USSR. I'm thinking Chieftains with Drozd APS, M60s covered in reactive armor, Fencers with Iranian Harpoon copies, Phantoms with R-27s and the development of an Iranian indigenous F-20 equivalent which is basically an F-5 stuffed full of Mig-29 parts.

The Iranian domestic arms industry has been OTL very crafty and impressive and with an ATL superpower ally they would move into the 1990's as a co-development partner with a weakened but surviving Soviet Union. Some sort of R-33/Phoenix derived mashup....heavy AAM thing will definitely be in order, for example. The ATL Islamic Socialist Republic of Iran will be eager to capitalize on Soviet friendship but will also be very scarred by the sudden disappearance of US support so will be a little fixated on domestic production.

Iran is a historical enemy of Russia so no backfires probably
Maybe just more tanks APC small arms and possibly mig fighters
And Tom cooper has said no F14s were sent to ussr , but who know how much of that is true

The historical enemy part is true, but the "hey I just became mortal enemies with the United States and I'm the northern half of the Persian Gulf" is going to overcome that. A lot of naval and airforce maritime strike assistance, but the Iranian land forces and most of the non-Gulf oriented parts of the air force will soldier on with US jets but Soviet munitions, help with producing spare parts, and a good sized Mig-29 order in the mid-80's.

 

[CV12Hornet]

The most interesting thing to me would be the late 80's early 90's recapitalization/upgrade of Iranian equipment taking into account a much smaller (if any) Iran-Contra arms transfer, and a close military relationship with the USSR. I'm thinking Chieftains with Drozd APS, M60s covered in reactive armor, Fencers with Iranian Harpoon copies, Phantoms with R-27s and the development of an Iranian indigenous F-20 equivalent which is basically an F-5 stuffed full of Mig-29 parts.

The Iranian domestic arms industry has been OTL very crafty and impressive and with an ATL superpower ally they would move into the 1990's as a co-development partner with a weakened but surviving Soviet Union. Some sort of R-33/Phoenix derived mashup....heavy AAM thing will definitely be in order, for example. The ATL Islamic Socialist Republic of Iran will be eager to capitalize on Soviet friendship but will also be very scarred by the sudden disappearance of US support so will be a little fixated on domestic production.

So we've got that F-20 equivalent, probably with an RD33 engine (call it the Azarakhsh); rebuilt F-14s with the AL-31 engine and either a heavily upgraded AWG-9 or the Zaslon-M as well as all the other component work the F-14D went through; and several squadrons of MiG-29s and Su-24s. What I'm wondering about is the Iranian Phantom fleet. Would those also be a candidate for a deep modernization? Phantoms are still flying today and some of the proposed rebuilds were pretty beastly. They look especially attractive when you take into account the limited size of the Tomcat fleet and Soviet reluctance to send Iran too much gear.

As far as tanks, IOTL the Iranians managed to get the Zulfiqar under production in 1996. Soviet assistance and components would speed up the process, and also allow greater production rates. Same story for the rest of their vehicle and artillery park.

I do wonder about one thing: where's Israel in all this? OTL they've been pretty staunchly anti-Iran for... obvious reasons. But with a stronger Arab coalition and Iran less explicitly Islamist, I'd expect Israel to be considerably more nervous about their Arab neighbors and less so about Iran. On the other hand, the US is likely to be pressuring Israel to stand against Iran.

I bring this up because from a kit perspective the Israelis have quite a lot of advanced systems, experience working with Soviet gear, and a willingness to export to Soviet-aligned but distant countries like, say, India. The politics are tricky for any sort of relationship between Israel and Iran, but it's certainly possible.

 

[Monk78]

Will Iran get a non nuclear version of SS12 or similar IRBM ? This way they can threaten the gulf sheikhdoms and coupled with SS3 shore based AshM dominate the gulf

 

[Gillan1220]

Will Iran get a non nuclear version of SS12 or similar IRBM ? This way they can threaten the gulf sheikhdoms and coupled with SS3 shore based AshM dominate the gulf

Not only that, they could also expel the U.S. Navy from the Strait of Hormuz. The Iranians do not need to fight the USN head-on. All they need to do is to keep the attrition rate high before the Pentagon would finally say the casualties are not worth as with all Iranian-American War scenarios.