Blood in the Sand - A story of the Soviet-Iran War and its aftermath (Redux)

[lerk]

Decided to redo my TL. It will be done in a fashion similar to Zhirinovsky's Russian Empire.

---

Prologue

Modern Iran: Roots and Results of the Revolution, by Nikki Keddie. Published 2006

Excerpts from Chapter 7: Iranian political thought prior to revolution

Khomeini, and by extension numerous Islamists in Iran, had a hatred of the United States, Israel and the Soviet Union. The United States was hated due to its support of Israel and of the Shah, while the Soviet Union was hated as it was a large, atheistic power in the north which, to them, had been enforcing atheism on the numerous Muslims within its borders. Khomeini's hatred for the three countries was for a time equal, yet that was not to last. Iran's eastern neighbor, Afghanistan, had in the spring of 1978 gone through a communist coup which was aided by the Soviet Union. The new communist government which had taken control was led by Nur Muhammad Taraki, a Stalinist who was committed to modernizing and secularizing Afghanistan. Sharia was abolished, veils were banned and the Afghan government pursued a campaign determined to get men to cut off their beards. Alongside that, Taraki established a cult of personality, and school books called him "The Great Teacher". News of what was happening in Afghanistan reached the entire Muslim world and revolted numerous Islamists. The modernization of Afghanistan was a key factor in the Islamic Revolution of Iran, with Khomeini being just as, if not more, anti-communist as he was anti-American. The anti-communism of Khomeini slowly trickled down to his followers, setting the stage for the Soviet Embassy Massacre in 1980...

Soviet-Afghan War
Encyclopedia Britannica, the free, online encyclopedia

Atrocities

...Perhaps, one of the most notorious of these massacres was the Aliabad Massacre, in which Soviet troops attacked a village which was comprised of Shia Muslims and killed over 90% of the population. The attack was condemned[187][188][189] across the world, and it was referred to as the "Soviet My Lai" among numerous observers both during and after the war [citation needed]. The massacre is also widely cited as the main reason for the Soviet Embassy Massacre[190][191] shortly after the Aliabad Massacre.

Baathist War Criminal given death penalty for crimes during the Iraqi genocide
September 8th, 1998
New York Times
Barbara Crossette

KARACHI --- Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, vice chairman of the Baathist Revolutionary Command Council under Saddam Hussein, has been found guilty of over 16 charges of genocide against the Kurdish and Shia population of Iraq from 1989-1990 and 8 counts of war crimes during Iraq's involvement in the Iranian Civil War from 1987-1990 by a UN court based in Karachi, Pakistan. Douri is the most high-profile official under Saddam's reign to be sentenced for crimes during the Iraqi genocide, as anyone more powerful than him has been killed during the American invasion of Iraq in 1990. The International Criminal Tribune for Baathist Iraq said that it has sentenced Douri, along with a commander of the Quwwat al'amn. Douri had escaped Iraq upon the American declaration of war and went to Syria, and had been masquerading as a janitor under the name "Ahmed Hussain". From 1990-1992 numerous sightings of him had emerged all across Syria, and a manhunt started with the goal of capturing him. He was arrested after he attempted to cross the border into Turkey, and was subsequently handed over to the UN. The court declared that Douri had acted as Saddam's vice president, and as such held plenty of control. Months before the American invasion had Saddam fall to alcoholism and drug addiction, and as such Douri staged a silent coup and became the de facto president of Iraq. Because of the power Douri had, when he fled the Iraqi government had nobody to lead it, that fact being the main reason why it the Baathist government fell in such a short time. Following the assassination of Uday Hussein, Saddam's eldest son, by a member of the Basij, Saddam had ordered began a genocide of Shias (derided in Baathist propaganda as "Khomeini's agents") and Kurds by forming the Quwwat al'amn (Security Forces), a paramilitary death squad which was responsible for most of the deaths of the genocide. In a span of a year, over 1,000,000 had died, and numerous sacred mosques to Shias have been destroyed. Douri was also tried for his role in using chemical weapons against the Iranian cities of Mashhad and Qom, the Afghan city of Kandahar and the Pakistani port city of Gwadar. While the gassings didn't lead to a complete abandonment of the cities as the Iraqi government was hoping for, it led to the deaths of over 60,000 people. The Iraqi genocide is cited as a major reason for the secession of Kurdistan in 1993 and the anti-Sunni pogroms in 1994.

The sentencing of Douri has been hailed as a great victory among human rights advocates, and led to celebrations occurring in Iraq. Iraq's supreme leader, Ayatollah al-Hakim, praised the ICTBI's efforts in bringing the perpetrators of the genocide to justice. But if there was one thing the human rights activists and the Iraqi government had to criticize the ICTBI for, it was for the exclusion of a charge which would have declared Douri and other war criminals of conspiring a genocide, hence having it be seen as a one-time event. Human rights activists claim that prejudice to Shias and Kurds have always existed in the Sunni Arab populace, and the fact that Saddam Hussein's government had a book republished by Saddam's uncle titled Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Persians, Jews and Flies and distributed it as part of a textbook for school children as proof that the genocide was not a sudden thing, but rather the culmination of bigotry many Sunni Arabs held.

"Let us not mince words, the genocide committed by the Baathist bandits was not something that happened out of nowhere despite what many of their apologists would have you believe" remarked Iraqi foreign minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi, "This genocide was beginning to be planned around the middle of the 1980s, perhaps even before that, but if you think that the Baathists just started killing people with no provocation, you are a fool".

The trial of Douri was postponed for a brief time in 1996 when a Shia militant group in Pakistan called the Hazara Fauj (Army) kidnapped Douri's legal defense, Ramsey Clark and killed him in a video once their demands were not meant. This led to a real possibility of the trial being moved to a country deemed more politically stable, Oman and Jordan being named as two options, but it was deemed to be too time consuming and the trial remained in Karachi.

On the same day of Douri's sentence, Muhammad Shanmakhi, a commander for military forces for Arabistan, the breakaway republic established in the early 1980s by Iraq and the USSR which comprised of Iran's Khuzestan province, was convicted on five counts of ethnic cleansing against Persians and sentenced to 65 years in prison. Also on the same day, Ali Barazani, a general for another Iranian breakaway republic, was cleared of two counts of ethnic cleansing against the Shia and Persian populace during his service for the People's Republic of Balochistan.

Ali Akbar Nategh-Nouri, Supreme Leader of Iran following Khomeini's death, has died
BBC.com
November 17th, 2008

Ali Akbar Nateg-Nouri, who had been Iran's Supreme Leader since Khomeini's death in 1987, has died at the age of 64 while visiting Kirmanshah, Iran. Nategh-Nouri had suffered lung cancer since 2005, and despite the obvious toll that remaining as Supreme Leader took on his health he endured for three more years. His death was announced yesterday at 8:10 PM local time on Iranian State TV. Iran's President, Ebrahim Raisi, announced that Nategh-Nouri will receive a full state funeral by the end of the month. He is expected to be buried near his family home in Noor, Iran, as his family believes that would be in accordance to his wishes. Nategh-Nouri was second to Khomeini in terms of popularity in Iran, and throughout the entire Muslim world he is revered for his leadership during the Iranian Civil War and in his efforts in rebuilding Iran.

Tributes poured in from the world. In the United States, the US government issued a statement of condolences, calling Nategh-Nouri "A courageous, brave fighter who will be dearly missed". The British embassy in Tehran said that "Nategh-Nouri defended his nation in the darkest of times, and rebuilt it. His is a story of perseverance". Nategh-Nouri was referred to in Iran as "Pasdaran" or "Guardian" for his role in the Iranian Civil War. On November 15th, Iranian Television reported that Nategh-Nouri's health was deteriorating and urged Iranians to pray for him.

Since he was diagnosed with lung cancer three years ago there were numerous periods where he was not seen publicly, and as such there were numerous rumors of him being dead. The longest period where he was not seen publicly was in the summer of 2007, where for 55 days he made no outside appearances. These intervals can be explained by him undergoing treatment for lung cancer.

There is now wide speculation over Nategh-Nouri's successor. One option is Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi, who was Iranian President from 2003-2007 and Raisi's predecessor. Another option could be Ebrahim Raisi himself, as he has now become acting Supreme Leader in the wake of Nategh-Nouri's death, but those close to him say he does not want the job and is content with being president. Mehdi Karroubi, a notable moderate politician in Iran and Raisi's opponent in the 2006 election is also an option, and might be Shahroudi's chief rival to the job as he has stated numerous times his intent to become Supreme Leader.

 

[Shevek23]

This deserves some encouragement I think. It does seem a little odd though. By the way the formatting of the first section, the background on the late 70s impacts of Soviet policy in Afghanistan turning more Islamist Iranian ire northward to the Other Great Red Satan was whited out the way I display things here--I like the beige background so maybe it isn't as bad for people with other themes. But I had to highlight the text to see that there was any there to read!

POD is apparently the Afghan revolution happening a bit earlier and the Soviets either by better policy or luck finding overall Afghan resistance easier to suppress, maybe because the "Stalinist" guy took charge from the get-go; I vaguely remember reading a book a decade ago and gathering that the Soviets were ambivalent about going all in to back the OTL revolution, and then there was a coup, I believe by the guy you have in charge, which worsened the inherently weak leverage the Kabul government had on the far flung and semiautonomous Afghan factions and with the Soviets being drawn in, turned into a spiral of a Great Satan war.

I want to point out there were reasons why the Kremlin did not jump in with both feet from the beginning OTL, but I think you have leeway for arguing a successful and forceful enough early takeover might entice them in by mid 1976 or so, and reinforce the shock and awe of their regime enough to keep the civil war smoldering on a low heat the Kremlin could readily face diverting adequate force to quash.

More worryingly, I believe there were reasons that Khomeini did not divert his full ire north against the Communists, suspicious of Soviet power as any Iranian nationalist must be, especially if it seems to be taking inexorable control of the large border with Afghanistan. Nevertheless OTL Iranian wrath remained focused on the US-Israel and of course soon Iraqi axis. (I am not saying Saddam Hussain had a good relationship with Israel by any means, the strike on his nuclear facilities would pretty much rule that out if nothing else, but I am saying in some senses, from some perspectives, Israel and Iraq might look like separate fingers of one US glove. Such a perspective would be largely misleading, but it would not be hard for Iranians to have it!

Now I gather that your secondary POD, the effective knock on that leads to a "Soviet-Iranian war" would be that due to more angry rhetoric against the Soviets due to their Communization of Afghanistan, the loose cannon militant students did things Khomeini himself might have had the wit to avoid, namely gunning down a lot of Soviet citizens.

But if the Kremlin had reasons to pussyfoot OTL regarding Afghanistan before deciding to go all in, they would have a lot more to hesitate to act precipitously against Iran. On one level, Iran would seem vulnerable; between loss of the protective patronage of Uncle Sam, and global isolation making it difficult to reinforce their military machine, and then the Iraqi attack on them atop that, as far as its native ability to resist goes the regime might have looked like a pushover. I believe your subtext is, no it isn't, and I certainly think that is a level headed way of thinking about Iran! But does Ivan realize this in time? Your premise is, no he doesn't and Moscow is furious over the murder of so many Soviet citizens.

And this is where I cannot agree it is plausible. In the early '80s Soviet regime control of internal communications in the Soviet Union was still pretty tight. If the Kremlin wanted the citizenry rioting in the streets for a war of vengeance, they'd tell the masses one thing through the channels they controlled. But if the Politburo had made a decision that war in Iran would be a terrible mess the USSR should stay out of, they had the ways and means to quash inflammatory rhetoric. I know the mere facts of what happened in Iran would sift in, and Russians would be worried about a situation where Soviet citizens go unavenged, but the very fact the regime is downplaying it would show any savvy Soviet citizen that exploding about it would just get them into trouble. The Soviet Union has been slapped in the face by beneficiaries before, and I believe the Kremlin would simply double down on controlling Afghanistan, maybe give some backing to more left-wing Iranian factions, but cautiously.

Not only might they have some dim realization what a quagmire conquering Iran would be, despite the deep bitterness between the USA and the Islamic Republic, they have to figure Uncle Sam will react quite drastically to Soviet tanks pouring over the Iranian border. With or without understandings with the Iranian leadership, we would not want the Red Army patrolling the harbors at the mouth of the Euphrates or elsewhere on the Persian Gulf coast. Ivan understands that, and the real reason the Kremlin would turn the other cheek is that they don't want World War Three.

The Soviet gerontocracy had many faults, but they were learning bitter lessons about generic resistance to Soviet power. When the Kremlin decided to deal with the crisis the Solidarinosc movement in Poland presented them with by ordering the Polish army rather than invading with a Red Army led Warsaw Pact force, it was a telling demonstration of how tightly circumscribed they were perceiving their power to handle things of this nature was becoming. Your POD hands them Afghanistan. I think they would button up the border and sit it out there.

Because the alternative, which would have been possible I admit, would lead to WWIII. Writing the TL where the Red Army invades Iran is probably a TL where the world dies horribly. We don't get to get to the 1990s your introduction lays out!

 

[lerk]

This deserves some encouragement I think. It does seem a little odd though. By the way the formatting of the first section, the background on the late 70s impacts of Soviet policy in Afghanistan turning more Islamist Iranian ire northward to the Other Great Red Satan was whited out the way I display things here--I like the beige background so maybe it isn't as bad for people with other themes. But I had to highlight the text to see that there was any there to read!

POD is apparently the Afghan revolution happening a bit earlier and the Soviets either by better policy or luck finding overall Afghan resistance easier to suppress, maybe because the "Stalinist" guy took charge from the get-go; I vaguely remember reading a book a decade ago and gathering that the Soviets were ambivalent about going all in to back the OTL revolution, and then there was a coup, I believe by the guy you have in charge, which worsened the inherently weak leverage the Kabul government had on the far flung and semiautonomous Afghan factions and with the Soviets being drawn in, turned into a spiral of a Great Satan war.

I want to point out there were reasons why the Kremlin did not jump in with both feet from the beginning OTL, but I think you have leeway for arguing a successful and forceful enough early takeover might entice them in by mid 1976 or so, and reinforce the shock and awe of their regime enough to keep the civil war smoldering on a low heat the Kremlin could readily face diverting adequate force to quash.

More worryingly, I believe there were reasons that Khomeini did not divert his full ire north against the Communists, suspicious of Soviet power as any Iranian nationalist must be, especially if it seems to be taking inexorable control of the large border with Afghanistan. Nevertheless OTL Iranian wrath remained focused on the US-Israel and of course soon Iraqi axis. (I am not saying Saddam Hussain had a good relationship with Israel by any means, the strike on his nuclear facilities would pretty much rule that out if nothing else, but I am saying in some senses, from some perspectives, Israel and Iraq might look like separate fingers of one US glove. Such a perspective would be largely misleading, but it would not be hard for Iranians to have it!

Now I gather that your secondary POD, the effective knock on that leads to a "Soviet-Iranian war" would be that due to more angry rhetoric against the Soviets due to their Communization of Afghanistan, the loose cannon militant students did things Khomeini himself might have had the wit to avoid, namely gunning down a lot of Soviet citizens.

But if the Kremlin had reasons to pussyfoot OTL regarding Afghanistan before deciding to go all in, they would have a lot more to hesitate to act precipitously against Iran. On one level, Iran would seem vulnerable; between loss of the protective patronage of Uncle Sam, and global isolation making it difficult to reinforce their military machine, and then the Iraqi attack on them atop that, as far as its native ability to resist goes the regime might have looked like a pushover. I believe your subtext is, no it isn't, and I certainly think that is a level headed way of thinking about Iran! But does Ivan realize this in time? Your premise is, no he doesn't and Moscow is furious over the murder of so many Soviet citizens.

And this is where I cannot agree it is plausible. In the early '80s Soviet regime control of internal communications in the Soviet Union was still pretty tight. If the Kremlin wanted the citizenry rioting in the streets for a war of vengeance, they'd tell the masses one thing through the channels they controlled. But if the Politburo had made a decision that war in Iran would be a terrible mess the USSR should stay out of, they had the ways and means to quash inflammatory rhetoric. I know the mere facts of what happened in Iran would sift in, and Russians would be worried about a situation where Soviet citizens go unavenged, but the very fact the regime is downplaying it would show any savvy Soviet citizen that exploding about it would just get them into trouble. The Soviet Union has been slapped in the face by beneficiaries before, and I believe the Kremlin would simply double down on controlling Afghanistan, maybe give some backing to more left-wing Iranian factions, but cautiously.

Not only might they have some dim realization what a quagmire conquering Iran would be, despite the deep bitterness between the USA and the Islamic Republic, they have to figure Uncle Sam will react quite drastically to Soviet tanks pouring over the Iranian border. With or without understandings with the Iranian leadership, we would not want the Red Army patrolling the harbors at the mouth of the Euphrates or elsewhere on the Persian Gulf coast. Ivan understands that, and the real reason the Kremlin would turn the other cheek is that they don't want World War Three.

The Soviet gerontocracy had many faults, but they were learning bitter lessons about generic resistance to Soviet power. When the Kremlin decided to deal with the crisis the Solidarinosc movement in Poland presented them with by ordering the Polish army rather than invading with a Red Army led Warsaw Pact force, it was a telling demonstration of how tightly circumscribed they were perceiving their power to handle things of this nature was becoming. Your POD hands them Afghanistan. I think they would button up the border and sit it out there.

Because the alternative, which would have been possible I admit, would lead to WWIII. Writing the TL where the Red Army invades Iran is probably a TL where the world dies horribly. We don't get to get to the 1990s your introduction lays out!

Click to shrink...

Some responses:


1 - Of course there will be many close calls in the 1980s that will occur, and there will be a revival of the paranoia in the 1950s and 1960s over nuclear war, but WW3 will not happen as both governments understand what a colossal mistake that would be. Note that the catalyst for the war is an embassy massacre, and as such some people there had diplomatic immunity, so while the US will condemn the Soviets and fund Iran (though not at first, as Carter sees through Khomeini's facade and know he is just as anti-American as he is anti-communist), they understand why they attacked.

2 - As mentioned before, some of those killed in the embassy had diplomatic immunity. Alongside that, Iran will be apathetic and not condemn them, and a government official or two might even praise them, giving the notion to the Soviets that Iran is a hostile power that must be reacted to. Note that Khomeini was immensely popular across the Islamic world as the Iranian Revolution was going on, Shias more so, and there is a chance that the Soviet leadership might fear his popularity might go into the Muslim-majority SSRs. As Azerbaijan was a Shia majority SSR this makes the Soviet leadership even more paranoid. Also, Iran was funding insurgents in Afghanistan, so the war might eliminate that.

3 - The Soviet Union will be getting help from leftist factions in Iran, separatist groups and from Iraq. As such, this makes occupation slightly easier.

4 - A lot of the oil reserves in Iran will be captured by the Soviets (not in the Persian Gulf, however, we'll get to that), and both Iraq and the USSR control vast amounts of oil. This can get them to set the price they want.

 

[lerk]

I understand this part of the TL isn't the best written, seeing as how the PODs are distant from each other and as such I had a hard time trying to make the update smooth.

----

Chapter 1

Washington Post
Ousted Iranian Shah killed in plane crash
October 21st, 1979

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who earlier this year was ousted from his throne, has been killed as his plane crashed in Eastern Turkey. So far, no official explanation has been given, yet the suspicious circumstances of his death have lead many to believe that sabotage is a likely possibility, with the KGB being named as a likely suspect. There were no survivors, according to reports from Turkish officials. It was reported that his plane had been travelling to America with the intent of receiving cancer treatment, an ailment of which he had for over five years.

The Turkish government opened up an investigation, but it can expect little help from the new Iranian regime, as their Supreme Leader Ruhollah Khomeini said on state radio "O Iranians! The tyrant, the American puppet, the one who showed little care for Islam, the Shah Pahlavi, has been killed in a plane crash in Turkey!". Celebrations occurred in Iran when news of the Shah's death, and most Iranians seemed to believe the story that the plane just malfunctioned, and some believe it was an act of God.

During his 37 year reign, the Shah, who on the 26th would had celebrated his 60th birthday, has been a consistent ally of the west. Installed following a joint invasion of Iran by the British and Soviets in 1941, the Shah was in the beginning of his reign seen as a figurehead, though following a coup committed by US and UK intelligence agencies in 1953 the Shah reasserted himself and became the absolute monarch of Iran. From 1963 to 1978 the Shah instituted a series of reforms meant to modernize Iran, which was called the "White Revolution". However, his authoritarian system of governance, combined with a secular governance led to growing resentment among communists and Islamists, such resentment exploding into the revolution which led to the Shah's abdication in February of this year.

Pahlavi's wife, Farah, and his daughter, Shahnaz, were also killed in the plane crash. Iran's former crown prince, Reza Pahlavi, was studying in Texas when his father died. His family plans on a private funeral in Ankara, Turkey's capital.

----

20 years after Aliabad, investigative journalist George Crile remembers the massacre which changed the entire Middle East
Time Magazine
By James Risen
April 13th, 2000

George Crile reads from an English language Afghan newspaper, which was given to him from a friend.

"These articles were printed in 1996, talking about the presidential elections in Afghanistan, the second of them to have occurred."

Ever since being going to Afghanistan in early 1980, George Crile has kept an interest in the country, along with its neighbors. His career had started in the mid 1970s with his groundbreaking documentary entitled The CIA's Secret Army, which had discussed the CIA's activities in Cuba during the late 1950s and early 1960s. With a growing interest in Central Asia following the deposition of the pro-Western Shah of Iran and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, he had travelled to Afghanistan to make a documentary about the events leading up to the invasion.

"If things had gone the way I had planned it to be, the documentary about Afghanistan wouldn't be what I was remembered for. I was planning on making a documentary about the Vietnam War following the Afghanistan one, but my reporting on the Aliabad massacre derailed my career from making documentaries and being an investigative journalist to becoming just the latter."

George Crile had, against the advice of CBS, gone into the northern areas of Afghanistan, the area which most of the fighting would take place. He had quickly developed a bond with the people of Afghanistan.

"My crew had settled in a small village, the name escapes me, close to Aliabad. The people there had sympathies with the Mujahideen, but they weren't willing to act on it. It was a quiet village, and many of the people living there had known at least someone who lived in Aliabad."

George Crile's fondness of Afghanistan contributed to his willingness to release the story of what happened at Aliabad. For George Crile, hearing the story of what happened to Aliabad crushed him, and he believed his reporting could make sure similar massacres did not happen.

"In Vietnam the My Lai massacre was perhaps that most notable war crime committed by us, but there were many other such massacres that occurred but did not received much coverage. As the war was just beginning I believed that by getting the story of the Aliabad massacre out, it could have embarrassed the Soviets enough and could get them to discipline their troops so that such events do not happen again".

George Crile recalled how he found out about the massacre. He was on his way to Kabul, as most of what he needed in the northern areas was completed, but as his crew was driving he encountered Aliabad. After seeing the numerous dead bodies, Crile had stopped and went inside the village.

"It couldn't had been more than an hour after the massacre had ended. I tried to find out if somebody had survived, but as time went on I began to believe that everyone in the village was killed".

Crile did encounter a Soviet soldier, who was drunk and most likely participated in the massacre.

"I was lucky enough to have a Russian translator by me. If I had to guess, that soldier was a private. Despite his slurred speech, the little bits of speech we could understand gave us the basic information of why the massacre happened".

According to the soldier, he was a part of a group of friends, and the most popular one was killed by a Mujahideen in Aliabad. Drunk and filled with rage, their let out their anger by killing everyone in the village.

"The soldier thought that everyone in the village was a Mujahideen" said Crile.

Production of the documentary was postponed after that. Most of the crew was shell-shocked by what they saw, and according to Crile one of them ended up in therapy for PTSD. Crile was determined to get the story of what happened at Aliabad out.

"The Soviet Union's ways of dealing with rogue soldiers was a lot harsher than how we treated them. If the story got out, I thought, those bastards would not get away it".

Crile went back to the United States a day later. It did not take long for the article on Aliabad to come out, and when it did it caused a firestorm not just in the west, but in the Islamic world as well. But one country in particular would be the most incensed.

"When I had been in that village, one of the people there mentioned how the people in Aliabad were Shia Muslims, in contrast to them being Sunni Muslims. To this day, I wish I had not put that fact in the article, because it all went to hell when the Iranians, specifically Khomeini, found out".

Ever since the Islamic Revolution in Iran occurred from 1978-1979, religion became more important to the average Iranian. Already, Khomeini did not hold much love for the "godless reds", and Iranians, seeing their co-religionists being killed by them had led to sentiments of anti-communism reaching a fever pitch.

"When I heard that Khomeini was yelling "Death to the Soviets, death to the reds!" I was apathetic. When I heard a week later that Iranian students have stormed the Soviet embassy and began to kill everyone inside, I had realized just how much of an impact my article had".

While the article did benefit Crile personally, as he soon got the Pulitzer Prize, gave him fame and became respected and well-liked in Afghanistan and Pakistan for making people more aware of the Soviet-Afghan War, he has felt uneasy when talking about how the article was received in the Middle East, and has believed that the article was the main reason for the Soviet Embassy Massacre and the resulting Soviet-Iran War.

"The governments of Iran and Afghanistan have repeatedly requested Russia to hand over Soviet leaders and generals so that they could 'be held accountable for their crimes'. Russia has of course denied, but I at times wonder that if any sort of trial should occur for criminals for the USSR's wars in the Middle East, should I also be on the docket, for being the one who started a chain of events that led to the war in the first place? Am I the one to be blamed for the woes of Iran in the 1980s and early 1990s?".

Soviet Information Agency TASS calls report on Aliabad Massacre "CIA propaganda"
New York Times
By John F. Burns
April 30th, 1980

TASS, the Soviet information agency, dismissed reports of a massacre in the Afghan village of Aliabad as "CIA propaganda".

"There is no way that such a massacre can happen so shortly after the beginning of the war" it said. TASS also cast aspersions on the journalist who reported on the massacre, George Crile.

"Nobody has heard of George Crile before his reporting on this supposed massacre. Questions should be brought up, is he a journalist or a CIA agent?".

The Aliabad Massacre has been a public relations embarrassment to the Soviet Union. It has caused numerous protests to break out in North America, Europe, the Middle East, North Africa and in East Asia calling for the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan. The UN security council was planning on condemning the Soviets for Aliabad, yet the Soviet Union's security council vote vetoed it.

The Organisation of Islamic Conference, an international organization consisting of Muslim-majority nations across the world, has condemned the USSR and reiterated their past demands of withdrawing from Afghanistan, but also made another demand calling on the communist government of Afghanistan to make a peace agreement with the anti-communist Mujahideen. Alongside this, there are rumors that the OIC might suspend the communist government of Afghanistan from being a member, yet the OIC has denied this.