Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Replying some more, because ATL is shaping up to be quite "interesting" so far:
Even assuming a successful removal and occupation effort, I think it's safe to bet all those IEDs and legions of suicide bombers will give US troops some major PTSD. If anything, it'd probably be more than OTL Iraq veterans, per both the aforementioned fanatical resistance and the "mash-up" of OTL conflicts that'd be left in Iran's wake.
Since Shi'a ISIS would spring up, I'm guessing they'd be enflamed by the fact their Ayatollah has been taken out — thus catalyzing a widespread desire for retribution and expulsion of "Western imperialists". Probably opens the door for Shi'a expies of Osama Bin Laden and his cronies, too, despite OTL Al-Queda having been butterflied. Occasional border conflicts with Iraq and other Arab states, meanwhile, are much more certain, prompting Saddam to hit "Alt-ISIS" with his usual brutal beat-downs (if not necessarily crush them completely).
In time, you might even get a weird dynamic in which Middle Eastern Sunnis are widely stereotyped as stern and stodgy, but ultimately much more "reasonable" and "liberal-minded" than their fanatical Shi'ite cousins. Even with the Taliban as a "crazed outlier", Sunnis could still point to Alt-ISIS (and possibly Alt-Al-Queda) as being even worse. No doubt Iran literally deploying legions of "human-wave" children who happily martyred themselves by charging enemy mines, machine-gun fire, and artillery barrages would reinforce this, whereas the Arab states — so long as they avoid going that far — could probably get away with more than IOTL.
Not sure, though I've a feeling a lot depends on the details, as well as how OTL future pans out to tell us what the long-term consequences of Iraq attacking first are.
For instance, if you get a future in which the US tries to take out Iran, anyway... then my sense is you'd get more or less the same thing as in ATL, just delayed by a few decades rather than butterflied completely. In other words, still cluster-fuck Iran and Shi'a ISIS, but now as an addition to (rather than a replacement for) actual Syria, actual ISIS, and actual soured relations with the Arab states — whereas at least ATL Middle East doesn't have those. Or at least, ATL Middle East at it's played out so far.
Iran wasn't even able to crush Saddam easily. And Saddam's military was garbage. There's little doubt that the Americans would be able to take out the Iranian regime with only a bit more difficulty than taking out the Iraqi regime. But because leaving the bloodied Ayatollah regime isn't a viable option, you'll see something like the Iraq occupation, but in the '90s (or whatever).
It'll be like that, but worse-- and with the Shi'a equivalent to ISIS showing up almost at once. So imagine the Iraq occupation, the Afghanistan occupation, and the Syrian civil war, all rolled into one conflict taking place in occupied Iran. A bloody mess. It would be a costly failure as far as Iran itself would be concerned. But conversely, with the Arab world more aligned with America against Iran, some major trouble could be averted on that side of the equation. (For instance, Arab rapprochement with Israel might get a boost, and there would be less of a support structure for anti-American Islamists in the Arab world. So probably no Al-Qaeda, for instance. With the USA seeking to surround Iran, they may well keep relations with the Taliban basically functional, too.)
Even assuming a successful removal and occupation effort, I think it's safe to bet all those IEDs and legions of suicide bombers will give US troops some major PTSD. If anything, it'd probably be more than OTL Iraq veterans, per both the aforementioned fanatical resistance and the "mash-up" of OTL conflicts that'd be left in Iran's wake.
Since Shi'a ISIS would spring up, I'm guessing they'd be enflamed by the fact their Ayatollah has been taken out — thus catalyzing a widespread desire for retribution and expulsion of "Western imperialists". Probably opens the door for Shi'a expies of Osama Bin Laden and his cronies, too, despite OTL Al-Queda having been butterflied. Occasional border conflicts with Iraq and other Arab states, meanwhile, are much more certain, prompting Saddam to hit "Alt-ISIS" with his usual brutal beat-downs (if not necessarily crush them completely).
In time, you might even get a weird dynamic in which Middle Eastern Sunnis are widely stereotyped as stern and stodgy, but ultimately much more "reasonable" and "liberal-minded" than their fanatical Shi'ite cousins. Even with the Taliban as a "crazed outlier", Sunnis could still point to Alt-ISIS (and possibly Alt-Al-Queda) as being even worse. No doubt Iran literally deploying legions of "human-wave" children who happily martyred themselves by charging enemy mines, machine-gun fire, and artillery barrages would reinforce this, whereas the Arab states — so long as they avoid going that far — could probably get away with more than IOTL.
So, on the whole, is this better or worse than OTL? I'd suggest that it's roughly on par. More pain in some places, a bit less pain in a few other places.
Not sure, though I've a feeling a lot depends on the details, as well as how OTL future pans out to tell us what the long-term consequences of Iraq attacking first are.
For instance, if you get a future in which the US tries to take out Iran, anyway... then my sense is you'd get more or less the same thing as in ATL, just delayed by a few decades rather than butterflied completely. In other words, still cluster-fuck Iran and Shi'a ISIS, but now as an addition to (rather than a replacement for) actual Syria, actual ISIS, and actual soured relations with the Arab states — whereas at least ATL Middle East doesn't have those. Or at least, ATL Middle East at it's played out so far.