Iran's Flag

[Marcello]

"I'm not sure about the Gulf War, since Iraq would have remained a sworn enemy led by bad ole Hussein and his famously rational decisions"

The Gulf War was largely a byproduct of the Iran Iraq war; Saddam ended the war with the most powerful army in the area and a bottomless pool of red ink. Seizing an oil rich emirate they had territorial claims on seemed a decent way out of the conudrum. Take away this and add a powerful neighbor armed to the teeth and the whole thing suddenly becomes a lot less attractive.

[cbreedon]

Interesting take on Afghanistan PlasmaKrab. I hadn't thought of that. The invasion was in December 1979 and the Shah was left in February. Maybe one of the factors was that the Soviets felt "Western" weakness in the region. Without that invasion, we may not have had Osama and the Taliban... I had never thought on how much history of the region was affected by the Iranian Revolution.

[PlasmaKrab]

I had never thought on how much history of the region was affected by the Iranian Revolution.

That's what Iranian exiles keep telling me

Take the Afghanistan story with a grain of salt, but I think a strong presence of pro-western forces just next door would have been a showstopper for the Soviets. As I said, they had a history of cross-border provocations and fly-overs with pre-revolution Iran.
Not 100% certain it would have stopped them though, after all China next door didn't prevent the US from intervening in Vietnam. Maybe more limited support for the communist Afghan regime?

OTOH the Taliban have not much to do with the Soviets. Remember Afghanistan was in a permanent state of near civil war long before the Soviet intervention. Had they not invaded, the Afghan government would probably have crumbled on itself or been overthrown anyway, and event would have ensued much like they did IRL, maybe at a slower pace.

[mr_clark]

Had the Soviets not invaded the "Communist" government's collaps by the warlords would have lead to a similar situation as now. Maybe Pakistan or the Shah would have seen it fit for including some poor warlord's or others territory into their own.
The question is how long the Shah's government would have in any way had a chance of sustainability anyways. He was a brutal dictator, and not very well loved by his people. One has to remember that the "Islamic Revolution" only took over after a mainly non religious revolt had the Shah fleeing already, the movement having achieved many democratic successes in 1977-1978. Besides he was already exiled in 1951 for a first time, and only returned after an US supported coup d'�tat in 1953...

[PlasmaKrab]

Sources differ on all that I'm not sure we will ever get the whole story.

I won't start a debate over whether the revolution was justified or supported by the people or anything. That's not what we are here for, and I guess we're off-topic enough as it is...

I agree that there are chances the Afghan history wouldn't have changed that much though. Now the whole idea of the whole off-topic debate is what the Iranian OOB would have looked like, had the revolution not happened. Not sure that "revolution happens the next year" is the most constructive answer. Not that I mean it couldn't have happened, of course.

I mean no offense here, but bear in mind that if we start discussing the hows and whys of the revolution, we'll end up in a few weeks and ten pages waaaay besides the original point of adding the pre-revolution Persian flag to the game.

Regards,

Plasma

[mr_clark]

hmm ghood point Plasma, I got carried away.

I think a monarchic Iran would be equiped with the most modern US equipment today. I guess the US shift towards Saudi Arabia wouldn't have happened so much, so maybe we would see less modern US equipment there.
By today Iran would have the M1A2 as their main battle tank, surely they would have bought Bradley or Warrior as IFV to suplement this force.
For air forces we'd at least see modern Block F-16s, maybe even some F-15s as replacements for the F-14 as an interceptor. With Iran's oil wealth and good relations to the US they might even be a partner in the F-35 program.

[PlasmaKrab]

Good point on Saudi Arabia, it would be interesting if they had kept a more open (non-aligned) purchasing line (spell O-S-O-R-I-O for me... ).

I'm not sure Imperial Iran would have got so much 100% US hardware, they also had a number of European/unaligned suppliers. Remember they were about to get about 1000 Challenger tanks, which would remain in line for some time. A Magach-like upgrade for their old Pattons would be interesting.

Bradleys are a thought, I think they were on to LAV-25s in any case, and some systems are common. In the 90s CFE-treaty context, it would be interesting to figure if they could get large enough quantities of surplus Leopard-2s in good conditions, for the first good Desert Leopard...

Modern F-16s no doubt, a replacement for the F-14 is a good question. Integrated defense with top-notch Patriots and assorted radars I'd say at first.

[Marcello]

Well, I have not reaserched Iran extensively (not yet at any rate) but I agree on the not 100% US hardware. I tend to think that for the tanks they might have stayed british and gone for the Challenger 2. I have also my doubts about aquiring used Leopard 2, it would have been much simpler keeping the existing Challenger 1 running.

"Integrated defense with top-notch Patriots and assorted radars I'd say at first."

I should note that in real life they also purchased some soviet stuff, like ZSU-23-4. Given that the US cannot offer much of anything below the area level (basically a bunch of Stinger armed platforms) I think that purchasing some russian air defense systems in the 90's might have been an attractive option (although I should review what are the european offers in this sector to be sure).

[PlasmaKrab]

Not that sure about the Challenger 2 for a lot of reasons. First thing, would it have existed at all? In the first place the Chally 1 was to be used only by Iran, and was taken over by the British Army after the revolution. Had they been accepted by the first customer, what would have been the main tank of the British forces?
Also, it sounds like the early Challenger 1 was plagued by teething problems. How would these have turned out,were the tanks in service half a world away in a not-so-important country? Would the after-market service have been as good as for tanks in Britain? Considering all that, would Iranian tankers keep a fond recollection of British tanks? Good enough to purchase the next one? Upgrading the Challys once purchased goes without saying, but surplus Leo2s (just a thought) would be available soon enough for cheap and give NATO compatibility and upgrade potential.

Thinking about it, I'd say look at the Turkish army and defence industry right now, and apply nearly the same to Iran. Up to the revolution they still had lots of less-than-excellent equipment still running (large army, mind you) which would bear interesting upgrades. Even the AIFV would be a good candidate for the next APC/IFV.

Apparently the JCSS file confirms ZSUs in Iran from the 70s onwards. Given the JCSS also cites SA-6s from the same period, I'd say this is a nice commercial fallout of the 1973 Arab-Israeli war.
As you said, there wasn't much of a Western offer on systems of this level back then anyway. There isn't much still, but in the 80s, how about a nice batch of Chieftain-Marksman SPs?
Other than that, there are a couple of European SAM series that could be of interest, like the Roland, Crotale or Aspide.
There were also a number of Rapier SAMs in service, which could have been upgrade, including to SP Rapiers. I've once seen a pic of a purported domestic SP-Rapier fix on parade, dunno how useable and widespread it could be. SA-15s might be part of the answer...

Thinking about F-15s, there would be a large number of F-4s from the 60s to replace as well, so why not?

[Marcello]

"Had they been accepted by the first customer, what would have been the main tank of the British forces?"

Dunno. From what I know the Challenger seemed to be in the right spot at the right time. The MBT-80 was going nowhere by 1979 and the Abrams was deemed too fuel thirsty by the british army when it appeared. So basically I think that the only alternative to jumping on the
Shir-2/Challenger bandwagon was going for the
Leopard 2. From a practical point of view it would have been better but politically how would have it gone?
The problem with the surplus Leopard 2 is that they are going to replace old stuff, like M60s or Cold war era export soviet tanks, bringing a substantial qualitative improvement and standardization for NATO armies. If you are already sitting on a thousands of Challenger you would not want used and logistically different tanks which are, give or take, in the same quality range. You would want a new tank, which would be used initially to supplement the Challenger and replacing whatever obsolete old junk was left.
The only reason to buy surplus Leos would be increasing the numbers on the cheap, but would that be necessary?