Rush Tarquin
Gone Fishin'
This might also butterfly away most of Afghanistan's modern misery (or at least replace it with an entirely different modern misery) if Iran and Pakistan are able to get it admitted to CENTO.
This is, of course, assuming the Baghdad Pact becomes an effective military alliance rather than staying the paper tiger it was in OTL. Personally, my money's on the latter. Britain doesn't have the capability to deploy significant forces outside of a handful of areas (they'll focus on the Canal Zone, Iraq, Lebanon, Cyprus, and Aden), and even those will be stretched pretty thin.This might also butterfly away most of Afghanistan's modern misery (or at least replace it with an entirely different modern misery) if Iran and Pakistan are able to get it admitted to CENTO.
Abdul,
Could you elaborate on the nature of the fiscal mismanagement and how the Powers forced this on Egypt, the arbitration by the French King, etc?
I remember reading that the Egyptian government sold its shares to the British government after experiencing fiscal problems, but I had a college professor who said the British not innocent in 1875, although he didn't go into much detail.
Actually, Iraq is bound to blow up sometime. The monarchy was...less than popular, the officer corps was disgruntled, the Communists and other Leftist and pan-Arab agitators were rather active and had many sympathizers.Iraq and Afghanistan are important currently because of 9/11, so don't think that they're inevitable.
That'll teach those meddlesome college studentsWhy not assess the effects of America and Britain using Agent Orange on . . . Columbia?
I'd say India would be more the wild card than Pakistan. Firstly because Pakistan is actually a member of the Baghdad Pact and has a massive interest in seeing Afghanistan stay Soviet-free, especially given Moscow's not-so-secret desire to gain access to warm water ports.However (with one bound, Jack was free) Britain might have the advantage (as in the (1920s and 1930s) of air power in Iraq. As for Afghanistan, I could see British, Persian and Indian interests joined, in keeping Russia out. The Afghan government might find British air power welcome. Pakistan would be the wild card - the Kashmir problem might call for British 'influence'.
Whilst the Pasha has a point, it's historical and not at the POD and thereafter.
Britain having the sense to strongly influence the Gulf and Suez would have a massive effect on Britain's balance of payments, as oil contracts and profits would go to the City of London rather than Wall Street. That's quite a significant change and could affect Anglo-American relations. The Commonwealth would be an economic power on the world stage, rather than a club of dubious presidential Swiss accounts.
Don't be so hidebound by current events - Iraq and Afghanistan are important currently because of 9/11, so don't think that they're inevitable. Why not assess the effects of America and Britain using Agent Orange on opium poppy fields in the Golden Triangle and Afghanistan, or doing the same to coca plantations in Columbia? That's as likely as a 9/11, with crooks being too ready to produce drugs.
I'd be interested to see if Britain can even sustain its dominance over the Middle East as late as the '70s. Honestly, I see the anti-Baghdad Pact backlash occuring in the mid-60s. Or would a longer British hold over the region accelerate events like Black September?
What do you all think?