A Suez War what-if- Jordan and Syria join the fray

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
What if Jordan and Syria declare war on Israel in the day between the Israeli attack on Egypt and the Anglo-French ultimatum?

Do the Anglo-French halt their intervention because things have gotten out of hand?

How well can Israel handle, or not handle, a three front war in 1956?

For comparison purposes, the Israelis won a six-day war with Egypt, Jordan and Syria in 1967.

Israeli operations against Egypt alone in 1956 lasted 9 days. (& Yom Kippur War lasted 20 days)

Could this widened, multi-front war end in a total or partial defeat for Israel?

Even if Israel loses no territory, could the Jordanian and Syrian participation force them to curtail the Sinai offensive?

Would the results instead be an Israeli victory on three fronts, and occupation of the West Bank and Golan Heights, within a short period, like a dozen days?

Or could there be an intermediate result, where the multiple fronts result in a war that is a bit slower and more grinding and costly for Israel like the 1948-1949 war, lasting months not weeks, even if Israel is winner in the end?

How will the occupied territories be dealt with internationally.

In OTL, Israel withstood international pressure to withdraw from Sinai and Gaza until March 1957, when it withdrew with the emplacement of the UNEF peacekeeping force in Sinai and Gaza with assurances about use of the Straits of Tiran.

Would the US and USSR insist on a similar withdrawal of Israel if it had occupied the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and the West Bank? Would it be possible to press Israel out of some or all of its occupied land to the east, given the greater religious attachment to it?

Could we end up with UN peacekeepers on every Israeli border, in the Golan and West Bank (and maybe East Jerusalem) in addition to Sinai and Gaza?

Or would the widening of the Suez War to involve multiple Arab countries result in Israeli retention of all occupied territories, pending peace treaties, which may or may not come any time soon.
 
In my opinion the United States with President Eisenhower and Soviet Union with Premier Khrushchev would probably put pressure on all sides going up to imposing a total arms embargo on the Mediterranean and Red Sea as neither would want the entire area to become a tinderbox right after they became de-facto independent from colonial rule along with all the regimes they poured support into. It would also take a lot of convincing to get King Hussein of Jordan to join Syria as they were a firm member of CENTO at the time and the UK was its chief benefactor at the time. Perhaps if Jordan and Iraq were convinced American and Soviet attempts at a ceasefire would be insufficient with an imminent threat of Britain and France imposing their will on the entire Arab world.

But I don't see Israel being able to take East Jerusalem as they were not as well armed to take on the Jordanian entrenchment of the Old City along with the West Bank at this time. Most of the fighting would probably take place to drive Israel out of the Negev (which it would fight hard to protect to keep access to the Red Sea) and Sinai then drive the rest from the Suez. King Hussein also wouldn't want to invade Israel outright considering the cost in material and lives at the time as he had fears growing Arab Nationalist influence at home. The only wild card would be the Palestinian Liberation movements which could see more opportunities to launch incursions into and terror upon Israel.

All in all I foresee a conflict turning into a protracted war of attrition that would offset other major conflicts in the region with no significant border changes besides the possibility that Israel could see their primary access to the Red Sea become Sharm al'Sheik as they could lose Eilat until a ceasefire is reached or would be too close to enemy lines to use.
 
The USSR and the U.S. would do exactly what they did IOTL and shut it all down. No one wanted a huge war in that area.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
In my opinion the United States with President Eisenhower and Soviet Union with Premier Khrushchev would probably put pressure on all sides going up to imposing a total arms embargo on the Mediterranean and Red Sea as neither would want the entire area to become a tinderbox right after they became de-facto independent from colonial rule along with all the regimes they poured support into. It would also take a lot of convincing to get King Hussein of Jordan to join Syria as they were a firm member of CENTO at the time and the UK was its chief benefactor at the time. Perhaps if Jordan and Iraq were convinced American and Soviet attempts at a ceasefire would be insufficient with an imminent threat of Britain and France imposing their will on the entire Arab world.

But I don't see Israel being able to take East Jerusalem as they were not as well armed to take on the Jordanian entrenchment of the Old City along with the West Bank at this time. Most of the fighting would probably take place to drive Israel out of the Negev (which it would fight hard to protect to keep access to the Red Sea) and Sinai then drive the rest from the Suez. King Hussein also wouldn't want to invade Israel outright considering the cost in material and lives at the time as he had fears growing Arab Nationalist influence at home. The only wild card would be the Palestinian Liberation movements which could see more opportunities to launch incursions into and terror upon Israel.

All in all I foresee a conflict turning into a protracted war of attrition that would offset other major conflicts in the region with no significant border changes besides the possibility that Israel could see their primary access to the Red Sea become Sharm al'Sheik as they could lose Eilat until a ceasefire is reached or would be too close to enemy lines to use.

Thanks for the thoughtful, thorough and "meaty" response. I could definitely seeing it turn a bit differently from any of the Arab-Israeli wars of OTL.

My only factual quibble would be that Jordan was not a member of CENTO and had distanced itself somewhat from Britain even while still purchasing arms from her (and the US).
King Hussein bowed to his "street" and to pressure from Cairo Radio to reject the Baghdad Pact. And, to show he was "serious" he dismissed Glubb Pasha and I think all British officers in his service.

Also, apparently in OTL Hussein was offering to join Nasser in the fight but he advised them to stay out.
 
Thanks for the thoughtful, thorough and "meaty" response. I could definitely seeing it turn a bit differently from any of the Arab-Israeli wars of OTL.

My only factual quibble would be that Jordan was not a member of CENTO and had distanced itself somewhat from Britain even while still purchasing arms from her (and the US).
King Hussein bowed to his "street" and to pressure from Cairo Radio to reject the Baghdad Pact. And, to show he was "serious" he dismissed Glubb Pasha and I think all British officers in his service.

Also, apparently in OTL Hussein was offering to join Nasser in the fight but he advised them to stay out.

You are correct Jordan was not a member of CENTO and among the initial founders of the Arab League. With that said Jordan at the time was still less antagonistic then the rest of the Arab League and desired a balance of power in the region that in many ways tacitly included the west as well as Israel. It does make sense that King Hussein would offer help to Nasser as he was in a stronger position at that time to take on Israel then a little over a decade later. But in order to maintain that strength I don't see Jordan committing to a total war on all fronts as stated in my initial reply. I do not mean to sound too elitist, but it appears the dismissal of British officers was proceeded by the decline of the quality of Jordanian tactics even though their training was still superior the militaries Egypt, Syria and Iraq at the time.
 
Top