MiG-21 was not as capable as Mirage III or V as a 'payload carrier', ie. combined weapons + fuel carriage was not as good. Might curtail some Israeli operations, like the long range bombing runs undertaken during the war of 1967. OTOH, Vietnam air war will go as-is, the Mach 2 fighters were used in low number by North Vietnam, even if to a good effect.
MiG-23 vs. Mirage F1 swap - the western-leaning countries have an even greater 'exposure' to the swing-wing technology. Hopefully the French will be doing a better job than MiG at making the wing box sturdy enough, that historically needed two redesigns so it can withstand high G maneuvers. Conversely, the 'Soviet F1' gets a much better commercial success abroad, being a much simpler machine to make and maintain, thus less taxing on government's budget. India licence-builds the type. China makes a 'solid nose' J-7 by early 1980s.
Soviet 'MiG-2000' is probably seen as a true replacement for the fighters conceived in 1960s, unlike the historical MiG-29? Meaning that Soviet-leaning countries make a faster switch towards the new-gen stuff in the 1980s, than it was the case historically. Halving the number of engines to fuel and maintain (vs. MiG-29) should've keep the fighter serviceable and upgradeable between 1990-2010 even with smaller military budgets. No carrier-borne version. Iraq buys them in great numbers.
The 'Mirage 29' might've seen a good deal of use in hands of French AF, as well as in Greece. French will be pressed to make a long-range version of it, somethning like the later MiG-29 versions, from the -M onwards. Possibly no export to India due to price in 1980s, where 'MiG-2000' is bought in great numbers instead? French develop the naval version for them, that might suit Indian needs instead of the existing MiG-29K?