Iraq monarchy survives
- Thread starter Pericles
- Start date
- Status
The union would be under Faisal II and would be pretty powerful. interesting...
Would this push the Saudis to the back? If so, supporting a more moderate Muslim state - at least, Jordan has been in the last few decades, I don't know about tht era - might have interesting ramifications. Would it prevent the most hardline Muslims from gaining more influence? ISTR Wahabbiis mostly began in Saudi Arabia.
What would have happened to Hussein?
I don't know anything about Faisal's personality but I find it hard to believe that Hussein would have been able to cope being #2.
I looked up the said Arab federation and it said Faisal was King. I'm not sure if Wikipedia was accurate though..
Alex Richards
Donor
IIRC from a biography of King Hussein I read a while back, the plan called for a rotating premiership with Iraq going first for seniority reasons.
Alex Richards
Donor
Effectively so, but only one would be in charge at any one time. If anyone has a copy of Lion of Jordan to check, that would be very helpful.
Interesting system. Do you think it and the Iraqi monarchy could last?
Alex Richards
Donor
I think it might require a PoD in the late 40s or early 50s. It's possible, but an uphill struggle.
Cook
Banned
How exactly would the union of Iraq and Jordan be significantly more powerful than Iraq on its own was? Jordan even today is a nation of only 6 million people with no signifigant natural resources and almost no industrial base; its GDP is the 90th largest in the world (just slightly larger than Latvia’s) and much of that is generated by providing services to western Iraq.
What PoD? Maybe a nationalist revolution that leaves Faisal as a figurehead(though that's against the OP)?
Alex Richards
Donor
I'll make the assumption that the 48 war still goes as OTL. At this point I think the easiest route would be in the 1953-55 period. Faisal II reached his majority in 53, so perhaps have him fall out with Nuri as-Said and move to renegotiate the Anglo-Iraqi treaty of 1948- easiest thing to do would be to cancel the joint defence board and reduce the provision for the other matters (perhaps 15 years rather than 25?) Having negotiations for the creation of the Baghdad pact fail in 1955 would also help (these two treaties really formed the rallying points for those among the Arab nationalists who felt that Iraq was too beholden to the west). Potentially this could then offer Faisal the opportunity to form the Arab Federation and move to end the remaining Anglo-Iraq treaty provisions earlier as part of the post-Suez issues (though avoiding Suez in and of itself would be beneficial), and if it moved to a non-aligned but generally somewhat pro-west position that would probably help matters.
Obviously there's still a lot of internal matters to deal with, but foreign policy was one of the major drivers for the 1958 revolution.
It would also be very unstable with lots of Arabs supporting a Nasserite orientation that undermined the government. It would also have lots of minorities - Shiite Marsh Arabs, Kurds, and Palestinians - that would hurt governance.
I think the Hashemites would be very hard pressed to maintain power. It is almost incredible that Jordan retained its monarchy, and that is with the royal family having a lot of support among the Bedouin. In this union, the number of hardened opponents far outnumber its allies, and the lure of getting that oil wealth keeps attracting coup attempts.
Same thing holds if the union never happens and Iraq retains the monarchy. The monarchy is not foredoomed to fall, but they have a serious challenge to overcome.
- Status