United Arab Republic: Nasser's Dream

[NuclearVacuum]

I am currently working on a timeline in which the United Arab Republic continues to exist, and is able to successfully unite the Arab World into a single federation. I have gone threw this website, and it seems like the general consensus is that the UAR and pan-Arabism were failed from the start, but I don't necessarily think so. Yes, there were problems, but who's to say that there weren't problems with other unification attempts? Had Austria won the Austro-Prussian War, we could very well have seen a completely united German state. Even the United States had it's fair chance to have fallen apart before it even got started. Please don't comment on those two comparisons, I only put them in here to make a point. I believe that had several events taken place, than it could be possible that the UAR could exist. I have nothing against constructive criticism, but please no out right "ASB" or "Not Going To Happen" comments here, please.

The POD I have been working on takes place shortly after the Syrian coup in 1961. Rather than rejecting negotiations, UAR President Gamal Nasser would come to the conclusion that there would be more pros than cons in negotiating with Syria. These negotiations would eventually become into a constitutional convention, establishing a finalized constitutions for the UAR (since the 1958 constitution was only a temporary one). What would come out of this is a clearer definition of what the UAR is. Among the changes would include:

• Defining the UAR as a federation of two sovereign Arab states (more or less like defining the US states).
• The legislature is reformed to allow equality (making Syria happy).
• The single-party rule is abolished (making Ba'athists happy).
• The UAR recognizes a secular form of government (which was already true prior to the POD).
• The office of the presidency is limited to a two-term minimum. As well, checks and balances would be implemented by the three branches.

Shortly after this new constitution is rectified by Egypt and Syria, Iraq and [North] Yemen finally apply for membership. By the end of the 1960s, Jordan and Aden (OTL South Yemen) are admitted.

I am going to stop here for now, and lets see if this is possible on its own. The next part will include a very different Six-Day War. Like I mentioned above, please no hate comments on the idea. Thank you.

[Rubberduck3y6]

I only know a little about the UAR and its OTL failure but what you've outlined looks plausible. The key is making the Syrians feel that the UAR is an equal union rather than Syria being an Egyptian province. Less centralisation of government in Cairo and more Syrian representation in government but then I'm sure you know more about it than me.

If the UAR survives past 1961 I can definitely see Iraq and Yemen joining as both expressed interest in doing so IOTL IIRC. King Hussein would have to be overthrown for Jordan to join but that nearly happened so it's definitely possible.

[NuclearVacuum]

Time for the second part. First off, here is a map I made which shows my environment for the UAR for this timeline. I love making maps, and this is the first time I made it look like an old, wrinkled one.'



The next half of the timeline revolves around OTL Six-Day War with Israel. I believe that with a stronger UAR (with two of its state not touching the Israeli border [note, I believe the UAR would only comprise of five states during the war, with Aden joining later in the 60s]), the war may turn out much differently. Assuming that Israel strikes first (as in OTL), there would be no way they could attack all targets in the UAR, especially with [North] Yemen away. Along with the might of one Arab nation (in comparison to many smaller ones in OTL), but taking into account the might of Israel from OTL, I believe what we may witness here is a "Korea" type of war, in which neither side necessarily gains or looses territory. The UAR would be able to hold off an Israeli invasion, and vice versa. The war would end on a ceasefire.

By the war's end, and with no humiliating defeat on Nasser's part, negotiations would take place. I base the next half on the idea here. In which case, the UAR would finally agree to the Jewish state only if they revert to (in this case) the 1949 border, and allow all Palestinians the right to return. Israel would agree to this, and we would witness a massive change in the Middle East.

While this war would have no winners (necessarily), it would be taken as an Arab Victory in the UAR, in which the UAR was able to thwart an Israeli attack, and giving the Palestinian Arabs the right to return. Because of this "victory", pan-Arabism would continue to grow (prominently in the recently freed colonies in Northern Africa).

If this is too ASB, I am open to suggestions.

[Cook]

The problem that strikes me is the various leaders involved. Analogies concerning herding cats, big fish in small bowls, etc. spring to mind.

[Flocculencio]

Jordan is a huge problem- the "revolutionary" governments of Syria and Egypt couldn't stand Hussein and he wasn't particularly fond of them either.

[imperialaquila]

I'm also rather skeptical that the US or USSR would allow the richest oil-producing region in the world to fall under one power.

Egypt, Syria, Jordan, etc. are possible (though you'd need regime change in Jordan to accomplish it), maybe Libya, Yemen, Sudan, or Iraq in some kind of looser arrangement, but I do not believe that the rest of the world will sit by while one power takes control of the world's oil supply (yes, exaggeration, but not by much).

[Tannhäuser]

That said, the USSR could see it, somewhat correctly, as an ally in the cold war. If it remains secular, it would be ideologically leftist, and it would already be a check on European colonialism and Israeli...colonialism, both of which the USSR opposed.

I am somewhat skeptical of a six-day war ending in a truce. Israel is too small a country, in my opinion, to be in a position, or willing, to accept a truce. If it doesn't win the war, it will probably lose. And any losses in a peace treaty would be strategically catastrophic, especially since the UAR is in this scenario now going to be very dominant, and Israel does not yet possess nukes.

This would bring about the interesting (though probably already discussed) scenario of what happens if Israel loses the Six Day War. Does the US intervene to prop it up? Does the USSR force the US to back down? Does this provide a rallying point for Arab unity, or remove the threat that was keeping it together (I doubt it). What does the UAR do with c. 5m Jews?

[NuclearVacuum]

Originally Posted by Tannhäuser

That said, the USSR could see it, somewhat correctly, as an ally in the cold war. If it remains secular, it would be ideologically leftist, and it would already be a check on European colonialism and Israeli...colonialism, both of which the USSR opposed.

I am somewhat skeptical of a six-day war ending in a truce. Israel is too small a country, in my opinion, to be in a position, or willing, to accept a truce. If it doesn't win the war, it will probably lose. And any losses in a peace treaty would be strategically catastrophic, especially since the UAR is in this scenario now going to be very dominant, and Israel does not yet possess nukes.

This would bring about the interesting (though probably already discussed) scenario of what happens if Israel loses the Six Day War. Does the US intervene to prop it up? Does the USSR force the US to back down? Does this provide a rallying point for Arab unity, or remove the threat that was keeping it together (I doubt it). What does the UAR do with c. 5m Jews?

Well like the quote I found, it would definitely not be a "second holocaust." Getting the idea from If Israel Lost the War, the US would have been preoccupied with Vietnam to be able to help out. The USSR may also pressure the west to stay out. If I had to make a best guess on this new idea, I would say that the UAR would occupy Israel, maybe news reports of "Arabs harming Jews" would be read around the world (which may and may not be completely true). Many Israelis would evacuate Israel, while others would stay because they had no choice. But I dough the Arabs would honestly do anything that they know they would regret. Even the mighty USSR wouldn't support a "second holocaust" (like I said before). In combination of UN pressure and Israeli infighting, it could be possible that Israel could be merged with the remaining Palestinian regions and be admitted as a new state with a Jewish population. Palestine is reborn, and the Jewish population would be allowed to remain.

Again, just an idea.

[RamscoopRaider]

Originally Posted by NuclearVacuum

Well like the quote I found, it would definitely not be a "second holocaust." Getting the idea from If Israel Lost the War, the US would have been preoccupied with Vietnam to be able to help out. The USSR may also pressure the west to stay out. If I had to make a best guess on this new idea, I would say that the UAR would occupy Israel, maybe news reports of "Arabs harming Jews" would be read around the world (which may and may not be completely true). Many Israelis would evacuate Israel, while others would stay because they had no choice. But I dough the Arabs would honestly do anything that they know they would regret. Even the mighty USSR wouldn't support a "second holocaust" (like I said before). In combination of UN pressure and Israeli infighting, it could be possible that Israel could be merged with the remaining Palestinian regions and be admitted as a new state with a Jewish population. Palestine is reborn, and the Jewish population would be allowed to remain.

Again, just an idea.

More likely the Arabs lose just as badly as OTL, it wasn't even close what happened, a few more troops of dubious quality will not stop Israel

[eliphas8]

Originally Posted by RamscoopRaider

More likely the Arabs lose just as badly as OTL, it wasn't even close what happened, a few more troops of dubious quality will not stop Israel

The difference here is that the war OTL was between a minor militar power and a whole bunch of rump states, in the timeline this is a war between a superpower and a moderately strong military power/

[RousseauX]

Originally Posted by eliphas8

The difference here is that the war OTL was between a minor militar power and a whole bunch of rump states, in the timeline this is a war between a superpower and a moderately strong military power/

If that is actually the case, ok a lot of the countries in question were at war with Israel anyway and it's kind of dubious how many the ones arn't could actually do, but let's just assume that the balance of power is significantly changed: then most likely Israel never pre-empties Egypt and leans even more on one of the superpowers (Israel wasn't firmly allied with either at this point)

[yourworstnightmare]

A UAR is possible, a UAR wank is not. UAR would not have been allowed to expand much by the US and USSR. And some of for some of those areas on the map to be incorporated there's have to be an invasion. And an aggressive UAR would certainly not be tolerated. Heck, there could very well be an end to it just by them invading Jordan. Of course a working UAR would be a disaster for Israel. Also, since the UAR initially would be Soviet leaning expect the US to prop up Iran, Israel, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

[Paul V McNutt]

I don't see Saudi Arabia and the Persain Gulf monarchies being overthrown all that easily.

[yourworstnightmare]

Originally Posted by Paul V McNutt

I don't see Saudi Arabia and the Persain Gulf monarchies being overthrown all that easily.

Not without an UAR invasion, and that would force the US to act.

[RamscoopRaider]

Originally Posted by eliphas8

The difference here is that the war OTL was between a minor militar power and a whole bunch of rump states, in the timeline this is a war between a superpower and a moderately strong military power/

The UAR would not be a superpower, probably not even a great power

All the UAR means is more kills for the Israelis

[NuclearVacuum]

Since the main question is based on not whether the UAR exists, but whether the UAR would be able to expand. Time now for the third part.

Regardless of what happens in Israel, it would spark pan-Arabism in the Arab world. South Yemen would be admitted, followed by Libya and Algeria. When the Trucial States gain independence, the people vote in favor of becoming part of the UAR. [Western] Sahara would gain admittance, leading to conflict with Morocco, and forcing Mauritania to leave much earlier (only to join later).

The oil crisis of the 70s would help bring pan-Arabism into the Gulf States. The assassination of King Faisal would become an opportunity for pro-UAR movements in Saudi Arabia to form. The Shammar regions of Saudi Arabia declare their secession first (being backed by the [former] royal family in exile in Iraq). With UAR backing (not invasion), Saudi Arabia would collapse, and than be merged into the UAR. Oman and Morocco would fall, and Kuwait would be annexed by Iraq.

[strangeland]

It probably won't work. At best, you'll get a loose confederation of Egypt, Libya, Sudan, Yemen, Syria, and Iraq (the other states never really showed much interest in Arab unity beyond paying lip service to the idea), and even then the whole will probably be considerably less than the sum of its parts. The UAR will have to exert a considerable amount of energy just to hold itself together.

[DValdron]

Tricky.

Egypt has a huge population, but no oil wealth or significant wealth. So Egypt would be a huge drain on the oil rich countries. I think that they'd be reluctant to accept that. On the other side of the coin, Egypt with its population would probably demand more say in how things are done.

Of the Oil Nations, only Iraq and Libya would seem to be a candidate. Libya is particularly problematic in that its population is so tiny.... It would be swamped by Egypt. Thats not much motivation to voluntarily join up, at all.

Almost everyone else is an inbred monarchy, unlikely to sign on, and highly likely to oppose. In addition, I suspect the Jordanian and Moroccan monarchies would stay out.

Tunisia and Algria are in the french sphere, and its likely that France in particular would fight it. Tunisia in particular is too small and wouldn't be a voluntary partner.

It's tough.

I could conceivably see a Syria/Iraq superstate. Or I could see an Egyptian-bullied state comprising Egypt/Libya/Sudan/Yemen. But....

[ImmortalImpi]

The issue is that Egypt always dominated the UAR and Nasser was never interested in relinquishing power to Syria(not to mention he removed the Ba'ath party).

[NuclearVacuum]

If I may correct, the POD states that the Nasser would allow reforms, and would agree to share power.