Turkish or Iranian intervention against Arabs

BigBlueBox

Banned
Let’s imagine a timeline in which the United Arab Republic never broke apart and instead grew closer together and created a competent military trained by the Soviets and armed with the best equipment the Soviets would provide them with. Iraq also joined the UAR. Sometime in the 1960s or 1970s it has a war with Israel, and is so successful that it becomes clear that Israel would be wiped off the map unless without direct intervention in their favor. (ITTL the Israeli nuclear weapons program is severely delayed.) For some reason America can’t intervene - maybe they are too busy with the Vietnam war or they fear an oil embargo. Would Turkey or Iran be willing to intervene? If Iran intervenes, could the backlash against the intervention start an early revolution? If Turkey intervenes, how is the Cyprus conflict changed?
Scenario 1: Israel starts the war like in 1967
Scenario 2: The UAR attacks Israel on Yom Kippur or another Jewish holiday.
 
Turkey and Iran might do attacks of opportunity, but they most likely won't do interventions to help Israel. Iran is sitting on a powder keg of religion and Turkey similar doesn't want to be seen as directly helping a not-entirely-welcomes state in the region. Unless they believe they have a legitimate casus belli against the UAR, they're not going to risk their own populations turning against them for supporting an alien power occupying Muslim holy land.

The USA and NATO will, however, try to intervene without actual military landing, most likely by threatening intervention and forcing both sides to the negotiating table. Similarly, the Soviets don't want to be seen as supporting a potential second Holocaust, so they'll lean on the Arabs as best they can to convince Cairo to knock it off.

The first scenario has the better chance of Israel coming out on top, but assuming a stronger, unified UAR, then it's going to be a lot harder to win. Unlike OTL 1967, the Egyptians aren't exhausted by the Yemeni War (mostly because with the UAR intact, so is Nasser's prestige and thus he won't be as pressured to jump into Yemen to prove anything), and while Israel might win the first blow, the UAR is going to recover and start rolling back the IDF, by sheer attrition and numbers if need be. Plus, with Israel being the aggressor, it'll be harder for Iran or Turkey to have an excuse to intervene, because Israel was the one who started it.

The second scenario will have to get the USA involved, and while Turkey and Iran will help logistically, they cannot engage in direct operations without souring their reputation not only among the Arabs, but among their own population.
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
Turkey and Iran might do attacks of opportunity, but they most likely won't do interventions to help Israel. Iran is sitting on a powder keg of religion and Turkey similar doesn't want to be seen as directly helping a not-entirely-welcomes state in the region. Unless they believe they have a legitimate casus belli against the UAR, they're not going to risk their own populations turning against them for supporting an alien power occupying Muslim holy land.
If the UAR has made noises about unifying all Arabs, including those in Alexandretta and Khuzestan, would that count as a legitimate casus belli?
 
If the UAR has made noises about unifying all Arabs, including those in Alexandretta and Khuzestan, would that count as a legitimate casus belli?
It could, especially if the UAR actively and aggressively tries pressuring them into giving back said land, which would allow Tehran and Ankara to find legitimate excuses to try and humiliate or weaken the UAR.

It really depends on how loud the UAR talks about them, and how liberally Iran and Turkey can take any quotes about their territory out of context.
 
Let’s imagine a timeline in which the United Arab Republic never broke apart and instead grew closer together and created a competent military trained by the Soviets and armed with the best equipment the Soviets would provide them with. Iraq also joined the UAR. Sometime in the 1960s or 1970s it has a war with Israel, and is so successful that it becomes clear that Israel would be wiped off the map unless without direct intervention in their favor.

Highly unlikely Israel would be wiped out IMO based on the extent of the UAR described, and other factors. To be armed with the best weapons, the UAR would have to include more oil rich states than just Iraq. Underwriting big purchases would require Libya and KSA; yet even the former was still a monarchy down to '69. KSA was anti-Nasser as it opposed revolutionaries.
It's also a bit naive to think the UAR could have a competent military trained by the Soviets. As one writer noted "Without exception, arab armies equipped and trained by Moscow have been mauled in combat." Of course to a considerable degree this was the fault of the arabs themselves. Nasser filled the officer corps of the UAR with political hacks, not competent generals.

ITTL the Israeli nuclear weapons program is severely delayed.) For some reason America can’t intervene - maybe they are too busy with the Vietnam war or they fear an oil embargo. Would Turkey or Iran be willing to intervene?

They didn't intervene in '67 when the wreck of arab militaries gave them an opportunity for easy conquest. One problem was a possible Soviet reaction if they attacked an important client of Moscow.


Scenario 1: Israel starts the war like in 1967

The war would probably go like in the OTL.

Scenario 2: The UAR attacks Israel on Yom Kippur or another Jewish holiday.

I suppose an allout surprise attack would have a chance if they could do it to Israel--then a small nation--before it could mobilize.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Arab armies whether equipped by Soviets or west are mauled in combat
Remember 1948, no Soviets then
Plus saudi performance in Yemen presently
Common factor Arab incompetence not Soviet weapons ( albeit downgraded types supplied do not help)
Indians and vietnamese did pretty good with the same weapons
 

Khanzeer

Banned
If the UAR has made noises about unifying all Arabs, including those in Alexandretta and Khuzestan, would that count as a legitimate casus belli?
No
Arabs were divided amongst things into baathist socialist monarchist Islamist camps
 
Arab armies whether equipped by Soviets or west are mauled in combat
Remember 1948, no Soviets then

The Arab Legion fought well, but it was under British officers.

Common factor Arab incompetence not Soviet weapons ( albeit downgraded types supplied do not help)
Indians and vietnamese did pretty good with the same weapons

Right generally the problem was arab ineptitude. It would've helped considerably though, if the arabs had had better air to air missiles and tanks.
 
Top