What if Gamal Abdel Nasser achieved her goals and dreams?

What if Gamal Abdel Nasser managed to achieve his dreams and goals and make Egypt strong political and economic superpower and make it strong nuclear and was able to spread his ideas such as Lenin and Karl Marx and these ideas represented in Nasiriyah and could be published on On global and international politics How will this affect international and global politics?
 
I think this is pretty difficult to achieve. Neither the US nor the USSR would want a powerful Egypt-dominated Arab state, because it would control a large amount of the world's oil supply and would threaten both superpowers' regional allies.
 
I think this is pretty difficult to achieve. Neither the US nor the USSR would want a powerful Egypt-dominated Arab state, because it would control a large amount of the world's oil supply and would threaten both superpowers' regional allies.
I know about all these difficulties here. I would say what if he managed to do this and achieved his dream and his goal and was able to support his supporters in Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia and make it a Nasserite country and able to support countries in the world such as European or Asian countries Here I say what if all this has happened, what is the effect on the world?
 
A unified UAR from the Persian Gulf to the Atlantic would be an impossibility. Too many powers, both within and without the Arab World, oppose it.

If he does manage it, however, he should probably sign up for the lottery several; he's the luckiest man to ever exist :p Or maybe not; he's tempted luck enough already :D

Okay joking aside...

Congrats, he now has to manage the fourth largest nation on Earth, after the USSR, Canada, and the USA. There's more landmass in North Africa alone than the entirety of Europe. He's also going to rule over more than 150 million people in 1970, putting him in the top 10 populations easily. He'd have to invest heavily into education, training, and infrastructure to make it work properly. But assuming he even manages a decent standard of living and production, he's a powerhouse. While he'll never challenge the USA in terms of raw industrial power, he can still find a place among TTL's equivalent of BRICS. The existence of the uber-UAR is a gamebreaker in the Mediterranean; the UK and France have better navies, but the UAR has a presence through sheer size and coastal area.

He's not a nuclear power, but very certainly an economic one. Oil revenues alone would make his country among the richest on earth. Between the Gulf states, Iraq, Libya, and the Algerian gas, he practically becomes OPEC, with Iran, Venezuela, and a few hanger-ons. He also has a considerable mineral wealth throughout the country, such as Egyptian copper and Jordanian phosphates.

And that's just the start.
 
The biggest challenges that the leader of this Hearts of Iron achievement faces are its myriad ethnic groups. Not only are you dealing with Kurds, Assyrians, Copts, Berbers/Amazigh, and what have you, but several Arab ethnic sub-groups (religious groupings); Sunni, Shi'ite, Druze, etc... Good luck juggling all that. Working as an Arab nationalistic union is going to create a few troubles with your non-Arab ethnic minorities, many of whom lived in the region long before Islam unified the Arabs and lead them on their massive conquest. And what happened to the Israelis? Was Israel annexed or destroyed, meaning do the Jews stay or go, respectively? What should be done about them?

The other challenge seems endemic to Arab systems; you're going to have to deal with endemic corruption and hierarchical establishments with rather rigid structures that favor those in power. Reforms are going to be very tricky in order to benefit the greatest number of the population, unless he goes for a central group to support the regime, which would be a betrayal of the tenets of Arab Nationalism.
 
Have Nasser let the Baath Party run Syria as his proxy, come 1963 Iraq will join. Following the 1969 coups Libya and Sudan will join along with Algeria.
 
Not only are you dealing with Kurds, Assyrians, Copts, Berbers/Amazigh, and what have you,
Copts are Arabs, are not political powerful, and supported Nasser . Kurds, and Berbers are not political powerful during the 1960s and can be buy off with autonomy. Assyrians were partly assimilated into an Arab identity, and have the same issues as the Kurds and Berbers.

but several Arab ethnic sub-groups (religious groupings); Sunni, Shi'ite, Druze, etc...
Wasn't an issue until the decline of Arab nationalism and Islamic revolution.

unless he goes for a central group to support the regime,
This is all authoritarian regimes .
 
Last edited:
Wasn't arab nationalism itself a secular movement and against the islamic identity, so the arab minorities would rally to it.
 
Also no offense to kurds but i doubt they can harm a united arabia, arabs will use oil money and pour troops into the area and hell might even do what the chinese do and have arabs settle there to weaken these ethnic groups power.

Just a question if a secular arab government like this happens what happen to the islamic holy sites? Mecca and medina as introducing secularism their may go ugly and backlash.
 
Just a question if a secular arab government like this happens what happen to the islamic holy sites?

Nasser wasn’t a secularist. For instance, he made Al-Azhar University, an Islamic university, a state-run institution and got the ulema on his side. He’d probably just leave Hejaz to its own devices as its own “state”.
 
Nasser wasn’t a secularist. For instance, he made Al-Azhar University, an Islamic university, a state-run institution and got the ulema on his side. He’d probably just leave Hejaz to its own devices as its own “state”.

In a Muslim majority country if you want to push through radical reforms such as what Nasser wanted to you have to get support from Mullahs. Doesn't mean he wasn't a secularist.
 
In a Muslim majority country if you want to push through radical reforms such as what Nasser wanted to you have to get support from Mullahs. Doesn't mean he wasn't a secularist.

If religious institutions are run by the government, it does mean that he's not a secularist. The only reason Nasser is viewed as a secularist is because his opposition was rather more Islamist than him.

Kemal is what a secularist in a Muslim country looks like, and Nasser was definitely no Kemal.
 
Top