HALF PAST NOON: Ronald Reagan and the rise of the American Conservative Party

TransUral Empire · Jan 20, 2018

Been working and editing the TL more. This post and the next are focused on the Democratic Party and the 1984 Presidential election.

As per usual, everything that follows is from the TL posted on the other site.

Part 8: A step rightward

Coming into the 1984, there was only a few figures within the Democratic Party seeking the nomination. Even less than that were seeking the nomination seriously.

Reagan, despite his flaws, had managed to slash taxes and also acquire trade deals with Middle Eastern allies to at least partially negate the high prices of oil. While they economy was still plodding along without any major improvement, it lacked any major decline. So, when you factored in his being an incumbent into the equation it was unlikely that anyone the Democrats nominated had a chance of dethroning Reagan. Much of the Party held their breath for 1988 when Reagan's lackluster VP Hammond would likely be their opponent. Then surely it would be their time.

As far as serious candidates, there was just 3. If you considered those that flirted with the idea and the minor draft Bayh movement, there was in total 5 candidates running for the nomination that had any real level of support. No one was really expecting anything too exciting.

The first serious candidate was Bill Proxmire, long time Senator from Wisconsin. He was a more Centrist candidate and his campaign was more focused on reform to the government than the other candidates. He criticized Reagan's tax cuts and increase in spending as hypocritical and claimed that the debt was a very important thing to consider. In general he promoted "cutting out the fat" where the unneeded things in government would be defunded and funds were to go to deserving things. This would allow the government to cut taxes, and also spending, thus benefiting the citizens. Proxmire was also strongly focused on reaching out to the old Republicans who were still around and the Reagan Democrats as he honestly believed that the "cut the fat" program would bring both groups to his camp. His main opponent in the primaries was John Glenn.

John Glenn was Bayh's former VP. He had gotten a name for himself as Vice President as a strident Liberal who brooked no opposition. Glenn was firmly set on a firm socially and economically Liberal platform and opposed cutting taxes like Proxmire, he did however promote the same kind of reformism as Proxmire as a part of his "New American Compact" platform of which it made up a part of a nexus of issues. The New American Compact was a strongly Liberal document, promoting that same reformism, but also worker's rights, minority rights, pro-choice legislation and funding, a jobs program, and also a major funding push in green technology to lessen American dependency on oil. Glenn got a reputation for firm liberalism and he wasn't interested in going against his reputation now.

John Glenn giving a speech in Iowa, 1983: "What we need now more than ever is progress. If we want to reach the stars we first need to aim for the skies."

The third and final was Joe Biden who was a Senator from Delaware. Biden formed his own niche in the race as the middle between Proxmire and Glenn. Though this was often self-defeating rather than a benefit for the Biden campaign. Biden's domestic policy was muddled by this both-sideism. He was in favor of the same things that are mentioned in the New American Compact but "not as far" as Glenn and Bayh on these issues. But he was also fine with the tax cut and said that it was a way forward, yet at the same time he opposed Proxmire's reformism as he said that the government spending was already whittled down to the bone. The one thing he was totally clear with was his opinion that the idealism of the past needed to be restored. He believed that the cynicism and anger unleashed by Watergate needed to be mitigated so that faith could be restored in American democracy so that it could be an example for all. He polled a distant third and dropped out early in the primaries due to a lack of success, leaving Glenn and Proxmire to duel it out by themselves.

The question then of course was which section of the party would succeed? The moderate reformists or the firm liberals?

Glenn's campaign suffered largely from an aggressiveness that he became personally known for which clashed with the sort of feel-good liberalism that he promoted in his platform. That wasn't all though, when he managed to be a jovial and gentle fellow he came off as simply insincere. To more than a few people his New American Compact was not the New Deal that he wanted it to be, but it came off as a bad car salesman-sque sales strategy. He promised major changes but even if they were possible with the makeup of the Congress, more than a few of them were out of step with the average electorate. The time for that sort of liberalism was gone come '84.

Bill Proxmire on the other hand just seemed to have everything together. He promoted popular policies with the electorate and preferred a step to the right rather than staying on with die hard liberalism, hence his support for the tax cut. Proxmire promoted the idea that the reason that social programs were being gutted was not the lack of government income or overspending in the military, but rather that there was an incredible amount of government waste and if it was minimized the funds could then be utilized correctly. In some ways this was right, the US government had and still has a remarkable amount of wasted funds and if these wasted monies were spent on social programs it would make an amazing difference. But minorities and die hard liberals didn't buy the message, no matter how many times Proxmire insisted that it was self-evident after Watergate that government corruption was endemic. How much of this theory Proxmire bought hook and sinker is debatable. But his rhetoric shored up a surprisingly large amount of support among ex-GOP and new Conservatives who were still registered with the Democrats.

Proxmire's step to the right won out over Glenn in the end. The convention in Dayton Ohio was subdued affair. Proxmire's supporters were happy for his win but the convention did not have the hype that many thought it was going have, the die hard liberals were silent. They were not particularly enthused by Proxmire's win. Nor his firm Centrist platform. And even less by his running-mate.

Senator William Proxmire: "What we need now, more than ever, is the enshrinement of a new culture of responsibility."

Proxmire's running-mate was coordinated specifically to appeal to the ex-GOP. It seemed the Proxmire's faction was under the impression that they could make a wide coalition similar to Reagan. Stretching from the Democrat's Left to the ex-GOP as well as winning back the Reagan Democrats. Proxmire's choice was Liberal Republican Senator from Vermont, Robert Stafford. Upon hearing the news the die hards were sick. They had been totally beaten by the centrists.

There was chatter in the backrooms of a quickly assembled Independent run. But who? Bayh was firm in his being done with politics. Glenn? When approached Glenn threatened to let Proxmire know about what they were doing. So those who still believed in a independent run approached the Hardliners in congress. They weren't very interested. They had legislative duties to take care of.

The hope of an independent in '84 died in the womb.

Where the hell did the liberals go? Is it really the end of liberalism like all those articles and news reports on TV said? Regardless if that was the case or not in reality, that's what the Proxmire camp emphatically believed. They had made their step right, now they were going to get their chance to win back the White House.

For the liberals, they started to really believe that it was the end. Was the party changing forever?

------

Sorry for taking a while on this one folks, I had stuff to do and didn't feel particularly in the mood to do editing.

Next time, more election talk and more Joe Biden.

TransUral Empire · Jan 24, 2018

As per usual, whatever follows this is taken directly from the post on AH...

Part 9: A moral victory?

Going into the election, the Democrats were feeling shaky. Even the previously self-assured Proxmire was wondering if he had actually managed to construct a coalition around his values and not just delude himself into thinking that there was a new coalition being built. Regardless of what he thought, it was simply too late for him to moderate his positions. It was too late to make friends and rebuild bridges. That would have to come after the election. No matter the result.

In the end, win or lose, the Democratic Party would still be standing. Proxmire and the others from his centrist faction knew that as much as any other Democrat at least. Well, except for good 'ole Joe Biden.

Everyone had managed to keep their feelings stowed away inside about the step to the right. Even the Congresses' honest-to-god Socialist Ron Dellums somehow managed to keep his mouth shut. If they could get Reagan out it would be a major victory for the Democrats. That's how most Democrats figured it. It was that or battle it out in the weeks to come and assuredly doom the party to a loss. It was a hard line to walk but most people were able to keep their emotions stowed away for the time being.

But Biden opened his mouth regardless. It was the October surprise, even if it was a boring one.

Joe Biden: Moral compass of the Democratic Party?

He came out on the news and said that he didn't like Proxmire and that he thought that the step right was just nonsensical pandering. That he was throwing out years and years of Democratic policy in pursuit of a faustian deal with the conservatives of America for the White House. It stoked the previously dormant flames in the party. Biden was the first Democrat to criticize Proxmire after the convention but he was certainly not the last after his open criticism of Proxmire. It didn't take long for others to join the bandwagon and the Left of the Democratic party (no matter how few) went to war with the centrists.

But would Proxmire's new found supporters be convinced of Proxmire's policy failings? Would they be swayed? That was the important question. Much more so than how the vocal activists felt.

If polling is anything to go by, there wasn't much of a change in support. Like many situations, the squeaky wheel got the grease. Most Democratic voters didn't mind and his message of reformism echoed with their sentiments. But the question was then, did Proxmire just shift the Democrats rightward? Regardless if he won or not, the presidential nominee has an effect on their party. If you don't believe that you can ask Ford. He learned that lesson the hard way.

But even if he did shift the Democrats rightward. Even if he did jettison the Left of the party. Even if he did manage to form a new coalition, it wasn't going to be proven in editorials or news broadcasts. It was going to be proven in the ballot boxes and only at the ballot boxes. No where else. No matter how loud people screamed or how much Joe Biden ranted and raved on the news.

Maybe Proxmire was what they needed. Maybe this is the rebuke to the sort of wingnut Conservatives that had destroyed the Republican Party and had been acting as entryists since Goldwater. From shore to shore on that fateful day in November the people went to vote. What they decided in those little booths had a whole lot of importance. Even if they didn't really realize it at the time.

Proxmire and the incumbent Reagan prepared themselves. Reagan himself was confident that the incumbency would save him even if Proxmire managed to cannibalize some of his base. And if Proxmire didn't...well then Reagan and his boys knew that they would win heavily in that case.

Ronald Reagan/Jay Hammond (Conservative Party): 51.1% (+3.3%)
Bill Proxmire/Robert Stafford (Democratic Party): 47.6% (+5.3%)
Other and Write-Ins: 1.3% (-0.8%)

Proxmire hadn't won the Presidency, but he had won something else. Suddenly people were applauding his step to the right. It was received well, in the end. He had won more than a few states and strongly improved on Bayh's old total. If anything, he proved his ideas right and more importantly: moved Democratic Party policy one step to the right.

Senator Bill Proxmire: "Just wait for '88 folks! Just like the great general MacArthur said all those years ago - I shall return!"

But most of America wasn't paying attention where it mattered until days after the election. Sure, they may have won over some people and 1988 was starting to look like a solid Democratic year. But in Congress there was an incredible rot setting in.

Congressional Makeup of the newly elected Congress:
Changes in seats measured since the most recent Congressional Makeup section...

Senate – Conservative Majority
Conservative: 53 (+1)
Democratic: 46 (+3)
Independent Republican: 1 (-1)
Vacant: 0

House of Representatives – Conservative Majority
Conservative: 218 (+35)
Democratic: 209 (-29)
Independent Republican: 7 (-6)
Independent: 1 (-0) (Caucuses with Democrats)
Vacant: 0

Conservatives secured a majority in both houses of Congress and with a Conservative as President, suddenly a whole new round of legislation was possible. Ideas for legislation that was considered impossible to get past the Democratic Congress could now suddenly be passed in both houses. And with the Conservatives walking almost in lock step with one another, it was unlikely that any of these bills would find serious opposition from the Conservatives. As soon as Democrats understood this, the question was naturally: how did this happen?

The reason for that is easy to understand once one has a solid grasp on the reality of the situation. In many cases despite Proxmire's victory in the area, it didn't necessarily guarantee a victory in the downballot, especially since many Democrats simply didn't embrace Proxmire's message. Additionally, special elections and the midterms had been rough on the Democrats. Another thing that did a number on Democrats of course was the collapse and dissipation of the Democratic South. The Conservatives built themselves a winning coalition and it would take quite and effort to regain control of Congress now. It would take more than just a good blue midterm for the Democrats to get back in charge, that's for sure.

------

Well that was that. Unsurprisingly, Reagan stays in charge. You can't expect much more than that considering the advantage that something like incumbency brings.

Next time: More on the Middle East and everyone's favorite mesopotamian dictator.

TransUral Empire · Feb 3, 2018

Part 10: Saddam's wrath/Saddam's greed

By 1984 the Islamic Awakening had begun to firmly take root in the Middle East.

The various groups that saw their birth in the late 70's finally began to see their work pay off. These groups were often times violent and terroristic if they felt the need to be.

Most countries that would experience the revolutionary wave would have to deal with a long term insurgency or civil disorder depending on how they dealt with the Islamist groups. Some countries were able to suppress the groups in the womb like Turkey. Some subverted them, such as Pakistan. Some lost control and fell into Civil War, like Syria. Most however were like Iraq, the state tried to destroy them but it was only ever enough to drive the groups underground.

Iraq in particular would suffer from a particularly nasty series of uprisings, reminiscent of the early situation in Syria even if it never advanced that far. The Shiites of Iraq were not pleased by the situation in their country and as aid flowed in from Iran these suppressed groups were able to consider rising up against the Hussein government. Shiite radicals began to undertake terrorism in the early 80's. One shooting here, another bombing there. By 1984 the death total began to increase at an even more accelerated rate. Saddam was sick of it and he was sick of the military's lack of action against the rebels.

Using his secret police, Saddam located where most these groups made their homes: the southern city of Basra. While most of the leadership of the prominent groups were exiled in Iran, the organs of these groups were located in Iraq itself so as to facilitate actions against the government. They needed people to spread propaganda, acquire arms and cash, etc. As a result it didn't take long for Saddam's Iraqi Intelligence Service long to get an idea of what the internals of the various groups in Basra and all over Iraq.

Saddam Hussein planned to take measures against all Islamists, but Basra was to be made an example of. Basra was a very economically powerful city that rested on the banks of the Gulf and it was also the most Shiite city in Iraq. It made for an obvious target for Saddam.

Early in the morning, troops marched into Basra. With full knowledge of the internals of the various groups in Basra, they needed only to march to their homes and mosques to shut down the groups, but that wasn't what the Iraqi dictator wanted. He wanted a bloodletting to show anyone getting curious about stepping out of line that they would be dealt with. Mosques and Hawzas were surrounded and membership lists were obtained. Families and unlucky passerbys were lined up. The streets of Basra ran red with blood and many homes were flattened by Iraqi tanks rather than waste bullets on them or their occupants.

Iraqi troops prepare to fire at a barricaded mosque.

The massacres were caught up in the international news cycle and it didn't take long for the UN to take issue. They criticized every aspect of the massacres, understandably so.

The US and USSR also managed to find common ground on Saddam, he had alienated his benefactors in Moscow long ago and now he had no final line of defense in the UN. It could only get worse from there. Rather than learning to moderate his actions, the Hussein regime instead chose to learn the value of defense and mutually assured destruction. This lesson of course would lead to the Three Nation Axis which logical conclusion resulted in a robust Iraqi WMD program.

Ba'athist Iraq had no interest in the opinions of the news or the UN. The Iraqi media's line from that moment on was that "Saddam's Iraq was at the forefront against terrorism" and anyone less that draconian repression would surely lead to regional chaos. This line of thinking was remarkably hypocritical of course. Not only did Hussein's Iraq give ample funds to Sunni Islamists in Syria, but when secret documents were obtained after the twilight hours of Saddam Hussein's Iraq it was revealed that his government was the Middle East's biggest paymaster for Sunni Islamists outside of the Saudis. Propaganda and reality almost never line up.

Despite the massacres in Basra the situation in Iraq deteriorated even further. Additional arrests of Islamist sympathizers and mass executions of militants had made the Shiite Islamists aware of the depth of penetration by the IIS in their organizations.

They had an important choice to make. They could continue to remain underground as they were and hope the IIS weren't aware of them or they could jump feet first into their convictions and rise up against the government in Iraq. It didn't take long for uprisings to begin and to quickly increase in number in Shia areas of Iraq.

The Iraqi armies easily tore through these militants and the so-called "first stage" of the Iraqi Islamist Insurgency ended with little damage to the Iraqi military forces themselves. The "second stage" was the unconventional Shiite insurgencies that came into being following the end of the initial uprisings. While the army's forces were able to militarily defeat the militants, they were unable to destroy them fully, leading to them beginning of the cycle of insurgent actions, military reaction, and insurgent retreat that characterized the guerrilla warfare of the second stage. Even considering the tenacious fighting of the Shiite Islamists, the effect on the Iraqi military was always only minor. Iraqi society was shaken by the fighting but the military remained safely in Saddam's hands.

Saddan Hussein celebrates the "liberation" of Basra

The Iranians were not keen on the uprisings and insurgencies failing, never mind the slaughter of coreligionists. So they naturally gave aid and funds to these groups in Iraq. However they couldn't be too flagrant or provocative in their funding as Iraq had a military that could squash the divided Iranian government so direct military aid was eschewed for monetary aid so as to reduce provocations to Iraq. By 1986 the anti-Saddam groups would coalesce the groups into a group of 5 major factions across Iraqi society with the intent of overthrowing the Iraqi regime. These groups quietly set up their headquarters in Tehran and continued as normal in the hope that Iraqis would fail to notice Iranian transgressions.

The groups in the Council against Husseinism in 1986 were as follows:
- Party of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq: A venture of Shia cleric Mohammad Baqir al-Hakim who had been in exile from Iraq since 1982. It borrowed strongly from imagery and rhetoric from the Islamist Revolution in Iran in an attempt to export that revolution to Iraq. The group was considered effectively a puppet army for the government in Tehran. It was known as the backbone for the armed resistance to Hussein and had the most effective fighters.

- Reorganized Ba'athist Party of Iraq: A small faction mostly formed up of dissident Shiite members of the Ba'athist Party in Iraq who went into self-imposed exile or had gone underground following the massacres in Basra. They base their Ba'athism more off of Syrian Ba'athism and an odd sort of Iraqi irredentism as a means of 'coagulating' Iraqi society that seemed more at home in Mussolini's Italy rather than modern Iraq.

- Sadrist Movement in Iraq: A group that was previously closely associated with the Party of Islamic Revolution in Iraq but after the rising influence of Cleric Mohammad Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr they broke off. The Sadrist Movement was a more radical and intentionally bloody group which made its home in the Southern regions of Iraq exclusively. The group became known internationally for the attempted suicide bombing of Shimon Peres while visiting the German Chancellor at a Holocaust remembrance event. It was ejected from the council shortly after the attack.

- The Democratic Party of Kurdistan: A Communist insurgent group formed expressly on Tehran's orders. They fought for an independent Iraqi Kurdistan however they remained suspiciously silent on Iranian Kurdistan. They are also known for being rivals to the similarly named Kurdistan Democratic Party and frequently made attacks against the Barzani tribe.

- Free Iraq Party: A small, secular group that has worked in the Council against Husseinism on and off. The group was originally founded by Ahmed Chalabi in the early 80's to oppose Hussein and create a democratic Iraqi state. The Party renounced violence after 1988 and instead focused on journalism and the media to spread news of Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses and other various crimes.

Saddam quickly pounced on the issue and soon whatever was left of rivals within the Iraqi government was gone. They were purged for being "Iranian spies." It also led to a general ramping up of tensions on the Iran-Iraq border which the Iranian government was quick to notice. Ultimately Iraq did not invade Iran, for what reason exactly it is not known, but it is believed that Donald Rumsfeld visited Hussein in late 1986 and convinced him not to take the path towards war. Rumsfeld at that point was very high up the ladder and recognized by all major intelligence agencies as an unofficial "minister without portfolio" within the American government. Considering the drop in funding for the Council against Husseinism in 1987 it is likely that Rumsfeld struck a backroom deal of some sort with Hussein. The specifics of course are unknown but the drop in funding to rebels in Iraq as well as the speed-up of the Iraqi nuclear weapons programs seems to suggest that the deal was very favorable for Ba'athist Iraq indeed.

"Saddam Hussein leads us forward!"

While it may seem the backroom deal secured some peace in the region, it didn't really. Syria and Lebanon were still in the middle of bloody Civil Wars, the Arab War was still ongoing, and the Islamic Awakening was beginning to see the first violence committed occur on its behalf in North Africa, particularly in Algeria. The Algerian government was simply unable to handle to groups and it did not take long for a brutal insurgency to spring up. The same occurred in Mali, Tunisia, as well as Libya and Egypt due to the circumstances of the Arab War and the Libyan-Egyptian War. This was also around the same time that the Islamic Awakening saw its first adherents in Soviet territories, as several Islamist groups in the Soviet Union today can trace their organization's roots to the mid to late 80's after becoming inspired by the general sense of upheaval against the secular order in the Middle East.

------

Sorry for taking so long on this guys. I had wanted to get this out earlier but I ended up getting side tracked so it took longer than I wanted. I didn't help that this post was originally written at like 3 in the morning so I had a lot of editing to do.

Night_stalker · Feb 3, 2018

Fecking Saddam.

TransUral Empire · Feb 3, 2018

Night_stalker said:
Fecking Saddam.

Saddam gonna Saddam. Thankfully though the Sunni-Shia issue will be a stumbling block for Saddam now.

TransUral Empire · Feb 6, 2018

The world can be an odd place sometimes. As per usual, everything following this message is what was posted on the other site.

Part 11: The nature of Persian governance

Ironically, as the rest of the Middle East marched further and further down the line towards destruction – Iran remained at peace. This was an exceptionally odd thing, especially considering the status of the Iranian government and the nature of how the Civil War had proceeded. Foreign events were especially negative towards Iran, yet still in remained together and at peace. Not wholly at peace, but a level of peace that had no been seen since the days before the Islamic Revolution.

Following the collapse of the Communist factions, the Islamists in Iran came together to form a new government. It was not expected to live long by foreign observers or even by the Reagan government who had brought the factions together.

This is expectation of collapse comes chiefly because the different Islamist factions that had come together now lacked a unifying foe between them. Foreign policy experts in the Soviet Union considered the new Iranian state a dead end. Additional internal issues stemming from Communist and secessionist rebels would no doubt do more than enough damage to provide a good situation for the Soviets to move into Iran. Tikhonov waited with baited breath for when Iran was at war with itself again so that they could reassert themselves in Iran.

But the Islamists defied all expectations. The main issue that they were supposedly to face was the various factions were expected to turn on each other so they could achieve supremacy in Iran. But what international observers failed to consider was that most of the influential leaders the factions and heads of militias were all close to each other before the Civil War. All of them were close followers of the martyr Khomeini and as a result there was only so much in the way of difference between the factions themselves. The old struggles and rivalries during the earliest stages of the Civil War were born out of desperation to become the defacto head of the Islamist resistance to Communism in Iran. With American support and the rigors of the Civil War, these rivalries by and large melted away and the militias were merged into a single military over time with much cajoling and diplomacy. With that, any issue the personalities had would be solved in the political arena rather than a military one. While things would no doubt be rough in Iran for a good number of years, they were most certainly not falling apart at the seems like the Soviets had imagined.

Ali Khamenei: America's closest (though not most compliant) ally in the Middle East

This supposed inevitable collapse became even more distant when Ali Khamenei managed to come out clearly on top with the most support. There was no ambiguity in his status as the new leader and as a result, no one dare challenge the new status quo.

Khamenei was a middle of the road figure, not too extreme, not too old, not too young. His faction's control of Tehran certainly gave him a boost in terms of power when it came time for negotiations but what won most people over was the fact that he was more interested in building consensus rather than setting consensus. This meant that Khamenei was more inclined to work together with other politicos and factions to achieve policy rather than ruling as a dictator. It made many weaker groups of the SCI flock to him, knowing that their support for him would allow them independence to be as they wished, but also give them influence when Khamenei got around to delegating positions to close allies.

There was of course some annoyance from more radical clerics towards this idea, considering Khamenei's approach to the Shura Council was closer to the Sunni implementation rather than the Shia implementation which promoted autocracy. Yet still, these were considered issues to be settled in the political realm, rather than with military force.

Iran still had internal issues of course. These, along with the construction of a new government and rebuilding the nation took up most of the new Iranian government's time and as a result Iran was never able to fully take advantage of the potential diplomatic windfall of the Islamic Awakening that their revolution had kicked off. It was be impossible for any Iranian politician to argue to send money and weaponry abroad when they could spend that money on rebuilding infrastructure and the weaponry could be used on rebels in their own country. It wasn't a particularly hard choice for them to keep things focused internally for now.

But even with a focus on domestic affairs during the aftermath, that didn't mean that the Iranians were totally useless in foreign matters. High gas prices lent a hand to the new regime and with American assistance the influx of capital gave the new regime breathing room it so sorely needed. They could sell oil at a great price (albeit with a discount to America) and that oil and gas money would fund the reconstruction of Iran and slowly allow the regime to take a more active role in the region. By the 90's Iran was a strong regional power and was able to support large-scale military operations abroad albeit with strain on their economy.

Indeed this money gained from national resources was perhaps ill spent with the Khamenei government's focus on the military, though this depended more on one's opinion on the value of military forces. Although at the same time it is important to note that a strong military policy was not necessarily Khamenei's preferred policy but it was forced upon him because of the nature of the rebel movements in the country and the hostile stance from their neighbors Iraq and the Soviet Union. If perhaps the situation on the ground was different the money gained from national resources would perhaps be spent on better diversifying the economy.

The People's Mujaheddin of Iran's still existing insurgency was of course a major concern.

As gas prices dropped due to the end of the Arab War and the general oil glut into the late 80's, Iran's would find more and more stringent budgets. And, once again due to political realities funding mostly found its way to the sector a defense and the Iranian economy would stagnate for a time until the situation with Iraq after which Iran saw a boon of income and Khamenei felt more free to spend his money on other things at that point, once again focusing on increasing revenues with already established streams of revenue (oil, primarily) rather than branching out or diversifying.

Regardless, Iran remains a close ally of the US even to this day and it is a stable state. Much more than her neighbors.

------

One of my favorite parts about this TL is that I've managed to make post-revolution Iran and the US buddies.

Anyway, we have one more Middle East focused section after this and then we have a more North + Central America focus for a few posts. The next post after this is a bit of a doozy. Someone's been playing with fire and they're about to get burnt.

TransUral Empire · Feb 10, 2018

This is a really damn big post. Just kinda how it turned out.

Part 12: Eagle on the Suez

The winds of change were whistling once again throughout the sunny lands of the Middle East.

With the Egyptian defeat of the Libyan invasion forces things quieted down for a week or so. The Egyptian victory was a Pyrrhic one and with the Libyan forces being allowed to retreat back home, taking Libya would be a major issue for Egypt. Even with the Egyptian air force giving support, they could only hope to penetrate so far into Libya, and with the Egyptian air force increasingly suffering from KIAs defending over Libya it was unlikely that the air force would be in shape to give any offensive pressure to support the push into Libya.

Regardless though, Sadat was anxious to strike back at Libya and to find an end to the war. Since the war began, Egypt had seen a marked rise in Islamist terror and Sadat had already nearly been killed in 2 assassination attempts within the year. He wanted to be able to use the military to suppress the growing Islamist threat but he couldn't risk doing so because it could give Libyans the sense of security they needed to attack again. It was something that Sadat couldn't risk.

So with the war in Libya effectively frozen for a time and the domestic situation unable to improve, Sadat focused military efforts on South Yemen.

By 1985 South Yemen's deep advance into North Yemen had been totally nullified and coalition forces were crossing into South Yemen. South Yemen were aware of their weakness, as military aid was no longer possible to stifle the coalition advance. They simply lacked the manpower to hold off the much larger forces on the ground, and with the destruction of their air force things were looking grim. Their last hope was the knock out of Egypt from the war and with that clearly not happening anytime soon, South Yemen realized that it would need to begin to consider beginning negotiations with the coalition in earnest.

Egyptian tank in Yemen, 1985

The coalition had no interest. The time for negotiations came and went a long time ago. The coalition was winning now and the damage done to the north was far too costly to allow for payments from the South to be their only concession. The only thing that the coalition was after by that point was total submission and the reunification of North and South Yemen.

The coalition continued marching south and south and a Egyptian-Jordanian joint maritime invasion of the South Yemenese capital of Aden caused the regime to collapse. High level members of the country's military and politburo fled into exile in the wake of the surprising capture of Aden. And with that South Yemen effectively ceased to exist.

Yemen was reunited even though fanfare was limited. The country (especially the Northern half) was flattened by warfare and it would be many years before it was back to where it was before. Even among the coalition nations there was little to celebrate. The war in Yemen was over, but they would need to maintain a paltry force there to maintain order, though in Egypt's case they had more to worry about.

The Arab War was finally going to come to and end, although there was still Qaddafi to deal with before it was truly finished.

Libya was still ready to duke it out and backroom negotiations had collapsed after Qaddafi caught whiffs of a brewing military coup. Qaddafi was ready to fight to the death so that the military was forced back in line. Either Qaddafi would win over Egypt and regain the trust of his officers, or he would be forced into exile after Egypt defeated him. Either way, he was not interested in peace. Not yet anyway.

Qaddafi considered the political situation shrewdly once again when he weighed military options. He rightly believed that the coalition would not give Egypt any measurable support, not enough to be anything more than a negligible force. He was right in regards to this because Egypt's allies had seen their small militaries savaged in the war and had little to offer even if they were interested in the conflict. He was also rightly worried about the return of Egyptian troops from Yemen and figured that attacking sooner rather than later would be for the best. Now Egypt was more powerful than Libya in a stand-up fight. Qaddafi deduced that an immediate offensive towards Cairo giving everything he had in a charge forward. Every piece of armor, every air craft, every ship, everything in Libya had to be dedicated to the defeat of the rats in Cairo.

Unfortunately for Qaddafi, Sadat was thinking similarly. In late December '85, Egyptian forces rolled across the Egyptian-Libyan border under the cover of barrages and strafing runs. The plan was simple: Egyptian forces would push as deep into Libyan territory along the coastal highways as was possible but being careful not to fray supply lines. This was of course easier said than done, considering both Libya's military strength and the difference between Egypt and Libya's population centers. Egypt's population was centered mostly around the Nile river and so Libya only needed to cross a few population centers to get to Cairo whereas Egypt would have to cross much more than half of Libya and all of it being heavily populated.

Egyptian forces pushed into Libyan territory and made gains in the first day, reaching about half way to Benghazi before stopping. Egyptian forces continued to push forward and forward while the Qaddafi's regime began to fall in on itself due to military failures. Qaddafi put more and more pressure on his generals and anti-Qaddafi elements felt emboldened by the government's losses began to come out of the shadows once more though they would wait before taking any serious moves against Qaddafi out of fear that he could somehow turn the tides of fortune against his enemies.

Egyptian forces continued their push but found heavy resistance in Benghazi. Libyan forces had dug in expecting stop the Egyptian advance there, so the advance ground to a halt and turned into a brutal street fight for Benghazi. Both the Egyptians and the Libyans knew that if Egypt broke here that it would be the end of the advance and likely the war.

But Egypt was willing to pull out all the stops to win. A secondary Egyptian force broke off and crossed from Tobruk into Ajdabiya – cutting off Benghazi entirely. It wasn't expected by the Libyans who rightly assessed that the Egyptians were unable for a second force to advance into the South like that and they really weren't. But Egypt was able to create a new pincer out of scrounged together Coalition forces, Mercenaries, and anti-Qaddafi militias that had crossed over into Egypt. If Qaddafi was willing to pull his forces out of Benghazi he could have easily launched a counter offensive against the hastily put together Egyptian forces in Ajdabiya and refocused his line of defense in the city of Sirte but he was desperate for a win.

Qaddafi needed a win to assure military support for his regime but it was looking increasingly like that was impossible. He ordered a counter-attack against Egyptian forces in Benghazi despite calls from his officers to attack forces in Ajdabiya. The Libyan forces in Benghazi which made up over 60% of Libyan's Army at that point fought bravely and strongly against the Egyptians but they were unable to dislodge the Egyptians. Both sides were holding on for dear life.

Sadat was getting anxious, more than even Qaddafi. He was very much aware of the state of affairs in the Egyptian military which was barely being held together. If they failed to take Benghazi it would surely lead to a collapse of the military in general. Even worse, the situation at home regarding Islamists was getting worse and worse with every passing day. Egypt could not afford a long term war that the situation in Libya was starting to look like. He had to find someone to help.

Sadat was able to find that friend in France. France had been protecting Libya's Southern neighbor Chad from Libya's incursions and military actions in order to annex the Aouzou Strip for some time now and was getting tired of Qaddafi's increasingly aggressive military actions abroad. Egypt began forming a new coalition to take down Libya in the hopes of ending the war earlier than expected. France, Chad, and the UK along with the old members of the anti-South Yemen coalition came together and began operations against Qaddafi in order to finish him off for good.

France and the UK were imperative to Egypt's victory in the Egyptian-Libyan War. They both provided air and naval support against the Libyan forces, destroying the Libyan Navy and Air Force decisively. With that, the Egyptian air force could begin operations in Benghazi unimpeded. But more importantly, the UK and France both bombed oil pumps and refineries in order to crush Qaddafi's economy. To Qaddafi, this was devastating. Oil was the lifeblood of many states in the middle east and Qaddafi's Libya was no different in that regard.

Qaddafi's regime survived mostly off of oil sales which would in turn fund his hair-brained schemes across the globe and without that income there was simply nothing to pay troops with, never mind keeping the government itself working. It was the beginning of the end for Qaddafi's regime if something didn't change. He saw the writing on the wall.

Libya began to backchannel to her opponents through the Swedes and some conversation happened between the two. Egypt was also still interested in finding peace with Libya rather than marching all the way to Tripoli as the Benghazi pocket was still holding firm despite an incredible bombing campaign against the Libyan forces there. But still there was little conversations beyond the potential terms and nothing came of the initial talks. Both sides still hoped that the other would crack first.

Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme who led peace efforts during the Arab Wars

The situation changed suddenly one night. For unknown reasons at the time, Israeli forces crossed over the Suez Canal and began to head towards Cairo at full speed. Why Israel decided to attack at that point was clearly decided based on how damaging it would be to the Egyptian war effort. Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir believed that Israel would not only score a quick win from the war, but also prevent Libya from collapsing. Due to Libya's opposition to Egypt it was being seen in a more positive light, not as an ally but as a tool for controlled chaos in the region. It was natural then that Israel made sure to move before most of Qaddafi's forces were crushed in the pocket – something that would spell the end of his regime.

Since President Bayh in the late 70's, the Israelis have dealt with an increasingly icy United States. As a result, Israeli foreign policy has more and more relied on playing the Arab states off of one another in the hopes to prevent them from all heading head first at Israel again. It was a dangerous game and made many enemies and made Israel look terrible but it was what Shamir and the Israeli political establishment had come to believe was their only choice. Therefore then, to save Israel, they had to save Qaddafi. It was an odd sort of irony that was poorly understood or explained even in Israel in the years following the invasion, never mind in the halls of American power. To America, even despite their terse relations, the invasion of Egypt was nothing but a betrayal.

The attack was naturally then received poorly internationally and the US almost immediately condemned the attack. The relationship of the US and Israel was thrown into a death spiral. Egyptian and Coalition troops withdrew to Tobruk, leaving a defensive line there and allowing the majority of the old invasion force to counter the Israelis. It was unlikely for them to get to Cairo in time, never mind prepare for Israeli forces but Sadat could not afford losing Cairo considering the domestic situation.

Against all odds the few forces left in Egypt, police, and bombing from the Egyptian air force managed to slow down the Israeli advance enough so that other forces were able to prepare for a fight in the urban areas around Cairo. Israel continued forward but their forces were caught up in heavy street-to-street fighting with whatever the Egyptians could muster up, including armed "civilians" who were closely linked to Islamist organizations who were more anti-Zionist than anti-Egypt. Entire prisons were emptied out in support of preventing the Zionists from taking Cairo.

Supply lines frayed and increasingly outnumbered. The IDF on the outskirts of Cairo.

Suddenly the quick victory that Shamir was looking for was looking much more difficult.

What Shamir wanted was first to prevent the collapse of Libya and finally to seize the Suez Canal however. It was a propaganda victory but it would also give Israel control of a major shipping point, allowing them to police international shipping. But even if they took the canal in the night and went no further Egypt would plan to attack in the future. It was considered an inevitability that the Arab states and Israel would find themselves at war in the future and with their seeming loss of America as an ally Israel was no longer able to take on the entire Arab world themselves. So Israel resolved to send Egypt into chaos by taking the canal and Cairo in a lightening fast strike, causing the Sadat government to flee and their troops in Libya to rout. It was no longer a game of petty canal seizure and geopolitical wrangling, but one of survival for the Israeli people and nation.

What Shamir and the Israeli chief of staff was not expecting was that the Egyptians would be able to put up such a spirited defense against them. They outnumbered the Egyptians in their path and were supplied better than them as well yet the Egyptians stood firm. The Israelis were for the first time experiencing what it was like to fight a caged animal, a state and people in the brink. For many years the boot was on the other foot, and Israel for what it was worth was happy to be the conqueror rather than the one clinging on desperately. Shamir and large portions of the Israeli conservatives despite their alienation for the first time believed that Israel could survive, even without American help.

But even after holding the Israelis at bay, Egypt was on the brink of pulling out of Libya and running scared. Sadat's government even fled to Asyut further South, expecting Israeli forces to be in Cairo sooner rather than later. So perhaps Shamir's gamble wasn't totally a waste. Later historians would consider it to be a strategic victory even if a political loss.

As stated earlier, it did totally ruin US-Israeli relations. Relations were already strained due to Reagan's policies in the Middle East up until that point and the effects thereof (namely the Islamic Awakening) as well as other bumps in the road caused by changing American policy in the Middle East. Reagan was never anti-Israeli by any stretch of the measure and considered them at least somewhat helpful but if they constantly went against American policy and did more to damage American influence in the region than help then clearly they were not worth the effort. The American state department and Reagan figured this was a fair deal for Israel but the invasion of Egypt was the straw that broke the camel's back. None of them could tolerate it anymore. From the USS Liberty incident to the MOSSAD operations on US soil, the Reagan administration could no longer tolerate Israel. It helped of course that some Islamists offered many potential allies in the region. Shamir's gambit was the true final death knell of the Israeli-American alliance of convenience. It would carry forward for several more years with the US and Israel trying to find common ground but the Israelis and the US were simply no longer natural allies and neither side could accept bending the knee to each others' interests any longer.

Israel was condemned by the US, the Soviets, French, British, and numerous other powers and subject to an arms embargo, sanctions, and official condemnations from the UN by the time Israeli troops began the final fight in Cairo. Israel had stepped on one too many toes and they knew it. Shamir and the rest of his government hoped that relations could be salvaged from the incident, that America could be regained by a show of understanding. This attempt was one of the attempts to find common ground and like the later attempts it failed.

Israel announced a withdrawal of their forces to the Suez Canal and offered to begin negotiations to end the conflict. Shamir even met personally with Kirkpatrick and tried to sway her back to his side, to get her to see the value of Israeli ownership over the Suez Canal but there was little left for him to save. Shamir didn't know it, but just hours before Kirkpatrick suggested a bombing run on Israeli forces in the Sinai peninsula to Reagan himself.

The crowning achievement of it all was that in his supposed deference, Shamir never order his troops to demilitarize the Canal, meaning that Israeli occupied the Suez and could do as it wished. They got exactly what they wanted.

Even with all of the diplomatic pressure and attempts to rebuild bridges with the world's powers, Shamir got what he wanted in the end. While Sadat claimed that the withdrawal was a victory, it was anything but. The aging statesman had been delegitimized in the eyes of the Egyptian public by the loss of Cairo and his flight to Asyut. Additionally the Egyptian military had finally begun to collapse under the pressure and the general staff began to whisper of a coup to save Egypt. With the domestic situation sliding out of control with Islamists running around with Egyptian military weapons, Sadat's Egypt didn't look long for this world.

So Egypt was in chaos and Libya was safe, at least for now. Shamir and Qaddafi both got their win, in a round about way.

The Libyan-Egyptian war continued at an odd pace with each side making sporadic attacks at each other at Tobruk but both had lost much of their morale. Too much to do anything big. It was in those days that Sadat was offered a chance to "retire" by several men of his cabinet. Sadat took the smart choice and went into retirement, allowing coup planner Abd al-Halim Abu Ghazala to take control of the state as Egypt's new leader.

Egypt's new strongman, Abd al-Halim Abu Ghazala

Egypt's new strongman's first actions of course were to find a way to make peace with Libya. Qaddafi and he had no issue in finding accord considering that both Egypt and Libya were falling apart and both nations offered a formal apology to one another and the war ended with no major settlements between the two powers. The Arab War was finally over, albeit at an incredible cost.

Israel continued to occupy the Suez and their increasing isolation from the rest of the globe was an inevitable side effect. But could Israel afford to live so separated from the rest of the world?

Worry not, for it did not take long for them to find a new set of friends.

------

A THICC post for a THICC Israel.

For all of you guys who aren't too hot on the Middle East focus, you'll be happy to know that we only touch on the region twice more. Or at least that's what I've planned. Now that I've successfully spun the middle east in a blender, the focus is now going to be more on the US, the Soviets, and the mess of a 90's that I have planned.

Night_stalker · Feb 10, 2018

TransUral Empire said:
Worry not, for it did not take long for them to find a new set of friends.

China?

TransUral Empire · Feb 11, 2018

Night_stalker said:
China?

I won't tell but it could be a lot of different groups really. You'll find out soon. In about 10 posts or so.

stevep · Feb 11, 2018

The phase "set of friends" suggests to me a number of powers rather than a single one, but I could be wrong. Been rather busy so forgotten much of what's occurred earlier but if a single power then China, or possibly India, which has problems with its own Muslim neighbour are options. Since the US is now less than friendly that would suggest a group that is at odds with the US, or at least not on good terms with them. [Historically in earlier time Israel had links with other pariah states, most noticeably white S Africa and Taiwan, but then the latter would definitely rule out good relations with mainland China].

The other thing of course is that Israel has nukes so only a fanatic who doesn't care about the costs or a major nuclear power is likely to really threaten them militarily.

Night_stalker · Feb 11, 2018

Also, I'm glad to see a TL that has US/Israel relations deteriorate without the US going full Evul.

Very rare.

TransUral Empire · Feb 13, 2018

Part 13: Back on the homefront...

It goes without saying that despite world affairs being unusually troubling that Conservatives were still more than able to focus their attentions to domestic legislation. The Conservative Party in the days of Reagan were a seemingly implacable force carried forth by an almost unnatural momentum. With the seats in both houses and with talented Congressional figures like Helms and Crane on the floor there was little to stop them from legislating everything away.

Jesse Helms, the great whip cracker: "Vote for the bill or get out of my party you stupid sonovabitch."

So naturally in 1985 that's the first thing they tried to do. The Deficit Control Act of 1985 was the first attempt at creating binding spending constraints on the Federal Budget. The specifics of the bill are much too dry to spend time discussing, but in short, it created a threshold of which spending was to be kept under and if spending was over this threshold there would be budgetary cuts across the board. The threshold would be calculated so as to decrease the deficit.

The bill passed easily but it was strongly opposed by Hardliners such as Mike Synar, Ron Dellums, and Ted Kennedy and it was brought in front of the Supreme Court. It was ruled unconstitutional on the grounds that it was an overreach of Congresses' powers under the belief that the position of Comptroller General was an agent of Congress rather than the intended Executive branch because of the fact that they could be removed by another method beyond impeachment, therefore making it an overstep of Congressional power. It was a winding and confusing argument, only something understandable to those with a strong understanding of Constitutional law, but regardless if one understood it or not it stymied Conservative plans.

The Hardliners rested easy for a while, but the bill returned with new wording. The Deficit Control Act of 1986 made it so that only by way of impeachment could the Comptroller General be removed, removing the issue of Congressional overreach from the bill. The bill passed both houses and was signed into a law once again. The Hardliners brought it to the Supreme Court once again, arguing that there was no real difference between the previous bill and the new one but the Supreme Court decided to uphold the law.

While the bill was intended to decrease government spending all it did was make the government run on an inefficient and ineffective shoe-string budget that did little good. Still though, it remained a popular bill among Conservatives and they strongly argued that the government should be able to follow a simple budget, giving rise to the term 'Simple Economics' in Conservative circles. It didn't take too long for Democrats to mock it as 'Simpleton Economics' but at that point it was already a core part of Conservative identity and therefore Conservatives refused to buck from the term.

"Despite claims of making economics simple, Reaganomics is anything but. The success story of the Reagan administration is one filled with back room deals, constitutional law analysis, and spin jobs. Still though, if the stock market is anything to go off of, Reaganomics does appear to work." - TIME Magazine

Of course that wasn't the end of what the Conservatives were up to. They continued along with the Just Say No campaign and more deregulation but the most notable legislation they got up to was further tax reform. It was opposed heavily the Hardliners but it was ineffective in the end as the Conservatives had majorities in both houses. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 slimmed the number of tax brackets to a total of three brackets and reduced each bracket's taxes.

Bracket 1, Top earners: 24%
Bracket 2, Middle earners: 20%
Bracket 3, Low earners: 15%

Additionally, Reagan scored major wins for his own domestic policy. Reagan's policy of New Federalism finally saw its first victories with a number of legislation that both rolled back Great Society programs and also allowed for states to elect to receive block grants to use at their own discretion to solve social issues they state might have rather than via Federal direction. This led to increased cuts on social programs in budgets on the grounds that the issues could be solved via the block grants. The other notable victory of course was the disestablishment of the Department of Education. It was established during President Bayh's term and naturally a popular target of Reagan and the New Federalists so it was inevitable that it would be done away with once the Conservatives got a majority in both houses.

One niggling part of the Conservative Party's domestic policy however was Universal Basic Income. Legislation regarding Universal Basic Income was something Reagan and the party never got around to and it would become a sticking point in the relationship between Reagan and his VP, Jay Hammond. As mentioned earlier, Hammond was brought on to emphasize the new ideas the Conservative Party had and this was chiefly represented by his endorsement of Universal Basic Income which he implemented as governor of Alaska in a form similar to Norway's sovereign wealth fund. It was something his "wing" (a tentative phrase, considering Jesse Helms kept the party marching together for the most part) was very interested in as part of a larger reform on entitlements.

------

Since this is a smaller part I was able to edit this real quick and get it posted for you guys. After this we take a quick detour to Central America, then the Kremlin, and finally we'll find ourselves back in the US of A for some fresh elections. The era of Ronny is almost over... but there's a whole hell of a lot more to come.

TransUral Empire · Feb 13, 2018

stevep said:
The phase "set of friends" suggests to me a number of powers rather than a single one, but I could be wrong. Been rather busy so forgotten much of what's occurred earlier but if a single power then China, or possibly India, which has problems with its own Muslim neighbour are options. Since the US is now less than friendly that would suggest a group that is at odds with the US, or at least not on good terms with them. [Historically in earlier time Israel had links with other pariah states, most noticeably white S Africa and Taiwan, but then the latter would definitely rule out good relations with mainland China].

The other thing of course is that Israel has nukes so only a fanatic who doesn't care about the costs or a major nuclear power is likely to really threaten them militarily.

Noticing that I said "friends" rather than "friend" is indeed perceptive. Israel makes 2 friends.

Regarding the ROC however, at this point IIRC Taiwan wasn't really doing the whole rogue state thing, the KMT was finally democratizing in the 80's so it ain't them.

Night_stalker · Feb 13, 2018

De establishing the DOE? Oh my, that's a big step.

stevep · Feb 14, 2018

Night_stalker said:
De establishing the DOE? Oh my, that's a big step.

That does sound like a huge step. With the other cuts in government social spending and the mentioned inefficiencies from the binding rule on the deficit I can see a lot of people losing out in both the short and probably the longer term. This could be a rocky road for the US socially and economically, even more than OTL.

stevep · Feb 14, 2018

TransUral Empire said:
Noticing that I said "friends" rather than "friend" is indeed perceptive. Israel makes 2 friends.

Regarding the ROC however, at this point IIRC Taiwan wasn't really doing the whole rogue state thing, the KMT was finally democratizing in the 80's so it ain't them.

Well I suspect one is S Africa, although how long the minority white government still has I don't know. Possibly the other is Rhodesia, in which case things could get really unstable.

If Taiwan is ruled out I'm not sure what other potential outsides there might be that would ally with Israel and vice versa but looking forward to seeing what develops.

Night_stalker · Feb 14, 2018

stevep said:
That does sound like a huge step. With the other cuts in government social spending and the mentioned inefficiencies from the binding rule on the deficit I can see a lot of people losing out in both the short and probably the longer term. This could be a rocky road for the US socially and economically, even more than OTL.

Especially since there'll be backlash once this start turning up.

stevep · Feb 14, 2018

Night_stalker said:
Especially since there'll be backlash once this start turning up.

I would expect some sort of backlash but it might not have the power to achieve much. In which case things might turn violent as people get desperate, which could simply compound the problem.

TransUral Empire · Feb 17, 2018

stevep said:
Well I suspect one is S Africa, although how long the minority white government still has I don't know. Possibly the other is Rhodesia, in which case things could get really unstable.

If Taiwan is ruled out I'm not sure what other potential outsides there might be that would ally with Israel and vice versa but looking forward to seeing what develops.

Don't worry, there's a love out there for everyone. Even the bad guys among us...

Part 14: Revolución, para siempre!

While it seemed like the Reagan administration took a back seat regarding Middle Eastern affairs they hadn't really. The US worked in vain to negotiate a peace treaty between Libya and Egypt in the days following the forming of the Benghazi pocket independently of the Swedes. This was because the CIA believed that Libyan troops would be able to easily break the pocket if they launched a two pronged attacked on the Southern section of the pocket, one side from inside the pocket and one force from outside. In the end Qaddafi never attempted that and instead Israel intervened, so the failed wheeling and dealing never mattered much in the grand scheme of things. Still though, the US had preferred an increasingly subtle, background role in the Middle East. In Afghanistan at the same time for example, the administration lauded the "Afghani freedom fighters" who opposed Soviet domination and prevented the Iranians from themselves getting involved, lest the US need to support Iran's regime against domestic challenges. The Reagan administration simply did not have unlimited resources to dedicate towards Afghanistan, meaning that sometimes certain affairs needed to be handled differently, in less expensive manners. This was all because American assets were refocused towards Central America.

In Central America there was a string of revolutions and ensuing insurgencies in the countries of Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua. The Reagan Administration, especially Kirkpatrick herself, was deathly afraid that if Central America fell to Communism that it would not only export Communism to other nations in the region (Mexico, Colombia, etc) but that it would act as a Pro-Soviet base similar to Cuba in the future. Such a situation was simply unacceptable, especially if they gained control of the Panama Canal. The entire world could go into flames before Reagan would allow that to happen, and so the US involved itself heavily in Central American affairs in the twilight of the Reagan years.

The primary manner in which the US opposed the Communists in Central America was naturally by funding anti-Communist groups. In El Salvador where the government had yet to fall to Communists, the US funded the government directly and their Salvadorian government's death squads. In Guatamala they also gave funds to the anti-Communist government and later the paramilitary forces, but in Nicaragua where the government had fallen to Communists they funded anti-Communist guerrillas called 'Contras' for their opposition to the new regime. The Civil Wars in Central America were bloody affairs with numerous human rights violations committed by both sides on a regular basis. There was no easy or clean way of dealing with Central America.

In Guatemala in particular the government had been dealing with Communist insurgents since the early 60's. The military government initially only saw opposition in the far off rural areas of the country, leading the junta to commit numerous atrocities against the indigenous population there that supported the Communist forces. But as time wore on, the insurgents looked like they were on their last legs – until 1982 when the various guerrilla groups united into a single faction: The Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unity (URNG). At the same time a new leader of the military government arose, Efrain Rios Montt, who devised a new strategy that he called "guns and beans" campaign.

Montt stated that "If you are with us we feed you, if you are against us we kill you." The policy specifically targeted indigenous Maya peoples and Ladinos and is considered a genocide by modern scholars. The Montt government was to be short lived however, after surviving a slew of coups from internal challenges the government began to fall apart. Montt's extreme anti-insurgency campaign failed to destroy the Communists, and in fact it managed to energize them in the fight against the government.

Efrain Rios Montt in the twilight of his regime, 1983

In 1985 the Guatemalan government collapsed in on itself as elements of the Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unity (URNG) flooded southward towards the capital city as the central government fought among itself during a coup attempt turned into a blood bath.

The rebels were determined to end it once and for all but some Guatemalan troops and anti-Communists held on for dear life, heading underground just like the Contras in Nicaragua. The Communists might control the government in Guatemala City, but they could not control all of Guatemala. This largely ended the Guatemalan Genocide but it only accelerated the horrors across Guatemala as the anti-Communists began terror campaigns and the URNG began a bloody campaign of revenge of the urban bourgeoisie and the land lords across Guatemala.

The only good thing in Guatamala, is that the dictator Montt was captured by URNG associated forces and was executed after a short trial for his crimes against humanity. The US didn't like this and naturally called it a kangaroo trial, drawing parallels to the show trials in the Soviet Union of old.

The US was determined not to lose Guatemala and was willing to do much more than just complain about it. So the war would continue until the US gave up or until the Communists were defeated wholesale. Neither of which looked likely in 1985.

In San Salvador the situation wasn't much better. The government of San Salvador was in a similar situation to the Guatemalans in 1982 when Montt came to power. There was a long term Communist insurgency and the government utilized violent and inhumane methods of controlling them. San Salvador took a different path however and elections occurred in 1984 between Christian Democrat Jose Napoleon Duarte and Far-Right ARENA leader Roberto d'Aubuisson. The elections took place in a situation of repression and violence. Due to d'Aubuisson's radicalism and untrustworthy nature, the CIA threw their support behind Duarte, making the elections very much not free. But still, they had elections in San Salvador.

To the Duarte regime's credit, they attempted to reign in the death squads and human rights abuses but their enthusiasm for that was ultimately minor compared to their desire to defeat the Communists. In some ways this was just the nature of the Central American civil wars of the 80's, but in other ways it displayed a callous lack of regard for human life that characterized America backed regimes in Central and South America for many decades.

After Guatemala fell things naturally got worse in El Salvador. Both because the Salvadorian government felt more and more under siege and also because the Guatemalan Civil War often spilled over into El Salvador. The Salvadorian military lost hope in the Duarte regime not long after and they moved against him, putting Carlos Eugenio Vides Casanova in charge instead. The new Junta promised to rid the Communists "within the year" and a new counter-insurgency offensive began. Reagan applauded their efforts.

Nicaragua was in a similar place. The Communists controlled the government there but the Contras didn't appear to be stopping anytime soon. The massive amount of US aid prevented any real permanent victory in Nicaragua, but the victory in Guatemala gave the Sandinistas some hope for the future. If El Salvador fell as well it would no doubt lead to a conflict in Honduras who was allowing the anti-Communists in Nicaragua and Guatemala to set up bases in their borders to prevent their eradication. Considering the momentum in Central America and the growing disorder in South America, the Sandinistas figured it was merely a matter of time before their victory. So they kept up the fight as per usual but American aid still proved to be an insurmountable barrier for them in the mean time.

A request from the President

The question was this then: Who will lose their nerves first? The Communists or the Anti-Communists?

If the Communists folded then it was all over for them, but if the Anti-Communists failed then Pro-Soviet satellite states would control several states in Central America and they would then export the revolution to their neighboring countries. The Americans were determined to prevent that at all costs.

No matter who had to die or who was brutalized.

------

Largely OTL since I only know so much about the region during this time. Pretty ugly stuff.

After this we touch upon new developments in the Soviet Union and then we're back to our regularly scheduled programming.

TransUral Empire · Feb 17, 2018

A double post!

Part 15: Crisis in the Kremlin

The Soviet Politburo, where General Secretary Tikhonov made his home for a time

The year was 1988 and the rot in the Soviet system was extraordinary. This systemic 'rot' of the Soviet system had first taken root after the death of Stalin and the rise of Khrushchev but under Brezhnev it was made into a ideological tenet. This rot was an ideological inertness, a worshiping of the constructed established, a rejection of struggle, a support for extreme ideological dogmatism, a polemic against reform – radical or moderate. As General Secretary Nikolai Tikhonov was a follower of Brezhnev's (s)creed there was almost no reforms or changes to the Soviet system since Tikhonov's rise to power in 1983 beyond "reforms" which were done to enhance his own power. For Tikhonov and the other strict Brezhnevites, the Soviet Union was Developed Socialism and therefore there was no need to change course. Even though all the evidence pointed in the direction of governmental collapse rather than any sort of Communistic evolution the Brezhnevites trudged forward, beaming with pride at each award they were given.

But even with the 'reforms' against his enemies, Tikhonov's enemies began to assemble. They grew tired of the Soviet gerontocracy, the collapse of the Soviet economy, the brutal war in Afghanistan, and everything to do with the the Brezhnevite position. The people were not satisfied. The security apparatus was not satisfied. The government itself was no longer satisfied. On December 22nd, 1988 Tikhonov was brought before the politburo and was subject to a unanimous motion of no confidence. Even long time allies in the politburo deserted him – no doubt fearing for their lives (or perhaps their careers). He accepted as that was his only choice and Tikhonov spent the rest of his days as a pensioner in Moscow. His and the Brezhnevites time in the limelight was over. A new group had seized power.

This new group was an odd coalition of Reformers, former Brezhnevites who had "seen the light", and Neostalinists. As soon as Tikhonov was out of the door the coalition collapsed and a rough fight for power began in the government. The three factions immediately began their war dances and in the end only one faction could reign supreme over all others.

The Neostalinists led by Grigory Romanov were the smallest faction. Formed out of disgust for the weaknesses of Brezhnevites and the failed reforms, the Neostalinists represented a desire to return the Soviets to their glory days by looking backward at the no doubt wonderful days of Uncle Joe Stalin. Their support in the intelligence apparatus was little and the vast majority of Soviets would not be interested by their rule. The Neostalinists would likely do more to speed up the destruction of the Soviet Union rather than slow it down.

The former Brezhnevites, or as we shall call them now: Moderates, were led by Victor Grishin. Their base was minor in the politburo as they rejected the Conservative course and did prefer some reforms but nothing too extreme. As the Soviet Union was falling apart at the seams and her satellites were on death's door it was not appealing to many people. They were opposed strongly by the Neostalinists who believed they supported the same path to destruction the Reformists did. The Reformists considered them too moderate and inflexible, though their weightiest criticism was that the Moderates and Neostalinists were both made up of the "old guard," a nice way to say people who were old and stuck in their ways.

The Reformists led by Gorbachev were the most popular and powerful faction. Even in the politburo the Reformist stench permeated every orifice. It did not take a genius to realize the Soviets needed a new path and there needed to be major changes if the Soviet Union wanted to make it to the new millennium. When people had to stand in hours just to get food in was proof of a broken system and the Reformists understood this. While they lacked support from the intelligence apparatus and the military chiefs, they had political power and popular support.

In the end the Reformists and Moderates were able to come to an agreement and Gorbachev was the new General Secretary. This agreement would easily break apart once Gorbachev was General Secretary and indeed even within the Reformists the various cliques and blocs would come to blows with one another. Regardless of all of this, there was indeed reforms, but what was reformed and how it was reformed was the question. After all, when a man is a hammer the whole world looks like nails.

General Secretary Gorbachev: "What we are building today with our reforms, we will reap tomorrow."

The world reacted well to the news. America welcomed the change but behind closed doors, everyone wondered if the Soviets really could turn over a new leaf. The Soviet satellites quickly saw their governments rearranged to fit the new ideological demands of Gorbachev and the old power brokers wondered if they were next up against the wall. But China took a different path.

Wang Hongwen had hopes that the Neostalinists would take power and that the relationship between the two Socialist nations could return to being somewhat normalized. Wang was someone who understood that two-heads were better than one, so if the Neostalinists and him could bridge the gap then it could provide a great opportunity to put more pressure on the Western Capitalists. It was a pipe dream, considering that the Neostalinists would never adopt Maoist ideas, but it was something that Wang hoped for nonetheless. When the Reformists took charge he was enraged. Not only had the Soviets continued to endorse revisionism, but they had even take the path of Dubcek and his ilk.

Wang immediately knew that he needed to know what kind of person this Gorbachev was. Could he take the pressure of being the leader of the Soviet Union or would he falter? Wang decided to launch another punitive campaign towards Vietnam. He had previously done this earlier on as a show of defiance to Brezhnev and to prove to the world that the Soviets would not defend its allies. Wang decided to add a threat to his new expedition to test the new Soviet leader: If the Soviets took action against the Chinese in their invasion of Vietnam, it would mean war.

PLA forces parading in Beijing weeks prior to the invasion

Chinese troops flooded South and this time the Vietnamese were not able to hold them back. The Chinese focused over 1 million troops into Vietnam and they overpowered the Vietnamese forces, sending them running further and further towards Ho Chi Minh City where the Vietnamese made their new wartime capital. The Chinese army pushed further, the navy blocked ports, the air force achieved air supremacy. After the fall of Ho Chi Minh City Wang realized that the Vietnamese had totally collapsed before him, not something that he had planned. Really he just wanted to try to see what the Soviets would say but with Vietnam in his grasp, he could now dictate terms in Indochina.

Wang replaced the Reformist Nguyen Van Linh whose Doi Moi reforms enraged him with the more palatable and supportive Vo Chi Cong as his first act. He additionally ordered purges of what was left of the Vietnamese military and government. The question then was what to do about Cambodia? Wang could restore Pol Pot to power easily with the power he had then, but he decided against it. He figured that Pol Pot was too big for his britches and so he needed to be removed. Pol Pot was brought to Beijing under the guise of visiting Wang himself but Pol Pot never made it to Beijing. Him and many of his close allies and families were disappeared. A loyal fellow of little note was brought up from the lower sections of the CPK. He didn't repeat Pol Pot's mistakes, he was quiet, and most importantly he followed directions from Beijing. Laos also had its halls of power shuffled in a similar manner to her neighboring Cambodia.

What did the world do? Every country in the world with the exception of Albania and North Korea responded poorly and negatively. Condemnations and sanctions soared. China was alone with the exception of her puppets Cambodia, Vietnam, and Laos, her ally Albania, and finally North Korea who simply did its best to avoid making China too angry. China was economically cut off from the rest of the world and Gorbachev masterminded a blanket sanction across the pro-Soviet Communist world and indeed a sanction from many developing states like India, Peru, and Algeria as well. Wang had learned his lesson and found out what kind of leader that Gorbachev was, he was not a warmonger but he was capable enough to not be walked over. But it was an expensive lesson to learn...for both of them. China's economy was taking a beating but Gorbachev had lost a great deal of influence in the military and intelligence communities of the Soviet Union. Losing Indochina with only a flaccid condemnation was too much for the Soviet military and intelligence elite. Gorbachev had made a deadly mistake already.

Under Wang, China would continue down an isolated path, making few friends beyond radical Communist states. Even worse for the average Chinese person, he would begin an earnest look into North Korean Juche to synthesize with his Maoism so that he could bring his own "reforms" to the People's Republic of China.

Gorbachev was prepared and ready to advance with reforms and these reforms would certainly not look anything like the perversions that Wang Hongwen was spending his free time cooking up in Beijing. No, Gorbachev had to save the Soviet Union. One way or another.

------

I felt like editing and posting another one. Here you go.

I may or may not post something in the middle of this upcoming week like I normally do. I have some stuff I might have to attend to instead.

Night_stalker · Feb 17, 2018

Something tells me Reagan's going to face seven kidns of hell for supporting those "antiCommunists".

Tankette · Feb 17, 2018

So, what's the end game of this scenario? The US weakened into irrelevance due to harmful Conservative policies?

stevep · Feb 17, 2018

I wouldn't say the rot set in after the death of Stalin, as I think it was an inevitable result of Lenin's totalitarian ideas. Suspect that without WWII, which gave the regime new legitimacy as well as a lot of prestige when they finally defeated the Nazis and reached Berlin, as well as discrediting alternatives to communism, it would have failed even earlier than OTL.

A bits surprised that Russia did pretty much nothing and that the Chinese were able to conquer all of Vietnam given the experienced nature of much of the Vietnam forces and both history [the long opposition to Chinese domination there] and geography [as there's some rough terrain and a pretty narrow front all the way down the former FIC. Plus apart from a few supporters of the Khemer Rouge I can't seen any local support for the Chinese.

Given his unwillingness/inability to do anything that would create serious problems for Gorbachev, as would be the fact that any serious reforms would almost certainly mean reduced military spending or at the very least attempts to root out corruption and cronyism in the system. The military and associated big industrial sectors aren't going to be happy, nor will a lot of the KGB and other such 'security' factions. Which could mean a period of serious turmoil and possibly even civil war. Also if the lease is loosened a bit and Gorbachev is trying to make reforms in the USSR then I can see strong pressure inside at least some WP states to push for greater reforms and more distance from Russia, which would further alienate the old reactionaries and the military.

Also sounds like its going to be bad for China as well. It was in a pretty dire state OTL before Deng's reforms and probably even worse here with greater isolation and a task occupying Indo-China, even before you add in policies like trying to develop a Chinese version of Juche.

I can foresee another round of starvation and massive political unrest. Plus the need to maintain a larger army and the emphasis on sheer numbers that might well develop, as well as industrial and technological problems is likely to mean the Chinese forces lag further and further behind those of the Soviets/Russia [unless the latter totally collapses] let alone the western powers and their allies.

Come to think of it I strongly suspect massive increases in military spending in the ASEAN region and possibly even a formal defensive alliance after this Chinese action. A lot of people are going to be very, very worried.

stevep · Feb 17, 2018

Tankette said:
So, what's the end game of this scenario? The US weakened into irrelevance due to harmful Conservative policies?

Possibly not irrelevance but the period of Conservative domination is likely to cause serious problems in the longer term. However in the next decade or two I suspect the [mis-]leaders of China and Russia are going to be spectacularly more successful in gutting their own countries.

TransUral Empire · Feb 17, 2018

Night_stalker said:
Something tells me Reagan's going to face seven kidns of hell for supporting those "antiCommunists".

Considering much of what happened in Central America in this timeline was almost exactly the same as our timeline, well don't get your hopes up. Unfortunately sometimes the bad guys win.

stevep said:
I wouldn't say the rot set in after the death of Stalin, as I think it was an inevitable result of Lenin's totalitarian ideas. Suspect that without WWII, which gave the regime new legitimacy as well as a lot of prestige when they finally defeated the Nazis and reached Berlin, as well as discrediting alternatives to communism, it would have failed even earlier than OTL.

Oh yeah, certainly. There is a moral and cultural rot in the Soviet Union from even before its founding. The good guys in the Russian Civil War lost and the little bit of good that may have come from the Bolsheviks winning was quickly gotten rid of once Lenin was gone.

But as far as "rot" I'm referring more to the bureaucratization of the Soviet Union and the lack of talented or otherwise dynamic leadership. Stalin was a bad person, but he was a talented leader and could "move on his toes" so to speak in regards to foreign policy. Kruschev lacked much in the way of talent and at least attempted to have dynamism, Brezhnev lacked both, Tikhonov was a good politician who could purge and finesse but lacked any sense of dynamism and so the Soviet rot only got worse.

A bits surprised that Russia did pretty much nothing and that the Chinese were able to conquer all of Vietnam given the experienced nature of much of the Vietnam forces and both history [the long opposition to Chinese domination there] and geography [as there's some rough terrain and a pretty narrow front all the way down the former FIC. Plus apart from a few supporters of the Khemer Rouge I can't seen any local support for the Chinese.

Gorby is a bit of a pushover, he was like this in real life and ultimately there was nothing he could do in the situation other than condemn it and work to damage the PRC's economy. He didn't really have the political capital (nor the balls) to do anymore than that at the time. Regardless, I don't think Gorby would have done well in that situation no matter how much power he had back home. The threat of nuclear annihilation between the PRC and the Soviets was a real and honest threat historically even though we rarely hear about it in the US.

As far as how quickly the Chinese waltzed in, that's the result of a few factors. One of which was that at this point I had spent a great deal of time discussing the Middle East and I didn't feel like it would be well received to go on another regional adventure into South East Asia. As much as the sentences might suggest, the Chinese victory wasn't an instant thing and took time. But still, you also have to consider that Vietnam's political structure would be uneasy. Either they would be still suffering under a poor economy or they would be engaging in reforms of their own at the time, meaning that Vietnam would be getting jostled around domestically and likely couldn't oppose the Chinese too strong. Of course on top of that you have to consider that Wang is running the PRC as a military-first state and the amount of soldiers they can force into Vietnam would likely be too much for them. Same goes for Laos and Cambodia. At a certain point you have to just accept that your bosses are in Beijing rather than Moscow.

But yeah, really I would have liked to have gotten into it more. Vietnam isn't to be trifled with and it would make for a good series of posts but I need to focus on US orientated stuff and get things rolling. The Vietnam-PRC war isn't the only thing I've removed or decided against in this TL, I had a large number of narrative only posts planned that were going to flesh out the "characters" more and also showcase Reagan's cognitive decline. Many of them ended up being too much like character assassinations and were distracting from the more important stuff so I got rid of them. If I ever do a redux of this TL I might include the stuff I cut which would be stuff like that as well as other parts (the Vietnam-PRC war included) in the TL. But a redux will only come after I finish the TL and its planned sequel but at the same time I must say that I really don't plan on starting to write the sequel any time soon.

Given his unwillingness/inability to do anything that would create serious problems for Gorbachev, as would be the fact that any serious reforms would almost certainly mean reduced military spending or at the very least attempts to root out corruption and cronyism in the system. The military and associated big industrial sectors aren't going to be happy, nor will a lot of the KGB and other such 'security' factions. Which could mean a period of serious turmoil and possibly even civil war. Also if the lease is loosened a bit and Gorbachev is trying to make reforms in the USSR then I can see strong pressure inside at least some WP states to push for greater reforms and more distance from Russia, which would further alienate the old reactionaries and the military.

You've got the same analysis of the situation that I have. Indeed, Gorby has to face the music at some point in this TL.

Also sounds like its going to be bad for China as well. It was in a pretty dire state OTL before Deng's reforms and probably even worse here with greater isolation and a task occupying Indo-China, even before you add in policies like trying to develop a Chinese version of Juche. I can foresee another round of starvation and massive political unrest. Plus the need to maintain a larger army and the emphasis on sheer numbers that might well develop, as well as industrial and technological problems is likely to mean the Chinese forces lag further and further behind those of the Soviets/Russia [unless the latter totally collapses] let alone the western powers and their allies.

Come to think of it I strongly suspect massive increases in military spending in the ASEAN region and possibly even a formal defensive alliance after this Chinese action. A lot of people are going to be very, very worried.

Yeah Wang's seems to be a bit of a nutter but he's not, not really. He was very ambitious historically and most of his politics since taking power has been for the sake of his political power. In reality he likely doesn't give a hoot about anything he espouses and it's all a part of the balancing act he has going on so that each element of the state is easily manipulable. It's natural then that he ends up looking at the Norks for inspiration although the worst's already come really, the nastiest stuff you're likely to get from him is textbooks saying that he doesn't defecate and that Chinese civilization is inherently superior to all others.

Wang's new China has the makings of only fun things. Well, only if you're reading it and not living it.

Tankette said:
So, what's the end game of this scenario? The US weakened into irrelevance due to harmful Conservative policies?

stevep said:
Possibly not irrelevance but the period of Conservative domination is likely to cause serious problems in the longer term. However in the next decade or two I suspect the [mis-]leaders of China and Russia are going to be spectacularly more successful in gutting their own countries.

To quote myself in the beginning of the TL: "For those who are interested, the title is a nod to the Strugatsky Brother's Noon Universe and also a reference to the idea that the world is past it's golden age in this TL. It's not dystopian and by the end in 2000 America is still a Democratic state but the world is far less optimistic about the future than in our 2000."

I promise neither total dystopia like many other timelines (I mean, I love them, but total dystopian timelines are getting boring.) or utopia. To put it succinctly, Francis Fukuyama's (in)famous book: "The End of History and the Last Man" will simply not exist in this TL's world. The ideological and cultural antecedent will not exist, ergo the book does not exist.

Oh boy I wrote a whole bunch. Not sure why, but I'm in a writing fever today. Good for you guys I suppose, I hope you guys are enjoying the TL.

HALF PAST NOON: Ronald Reagan and the rise of the American Conservative Party

Mess with the bull, you get the horse

Mess with the bull, you get the horse

Mess with the bull, you get the horse

Slava Ukraini!

Mess with the bull, you get the horse

Mess with the bull, you get the horse

Mess with the bull, you get the horse

Slava Ukraini!

Mess with the bull, you get the horse

Slava Ukraini!

Mess with the bull, you get the horse

Mess with the bull, you get the horse

Slava Ukraini!

Slava Ukraini!

Mess with the bull, you get the horse

Mess with the bull, you get the horse

Slava Ukraini!

Inquisitive 6-Year-Old Aunt

Mess with the bull, you get the horse