What if Gamal Abdel Nasser achieved her goals and dreams?

Marc

Donor
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?

An intriguing, and actually feasible, alternative path for an astute Nasser would be to concentrate on establishing the UNAAR: United Northeast Africa Arab Republic. Consisting of Egypt, Libya, the Sudan, and say, Eritrea as well.

But then, most romantic dictators are into being charismatic, not pragmatic.
 
An intriguing, and actually feasible, alternative path for an astute Nasser would be to concentrate on establishing the UNAAR: United Northeast Africa Arab Republic. Consisting of Egypt, Libya, the Sudan, and say, Eritrea as well.
Libya was a monarchy until a year before Nasser died.
 

Marc

Donor
Libya was a monarchy until a year before Nasser died.

Very true, but once upon a time there were a lot of monarchs in that part of the Islamic ecumene; past tense.
If Nasser actually bothered to think about Libya - which until the oil fields were developed wasn't very much worth thinking about (that has always really puzzled me, in a sanguine way, about the Italians and Libya, Oddio, what were they thinking, or drinking) - dear Idris would be allowed to live a quiet elderly life of rich spiritual contemplation in a nicely secure neighborhood in Cairo.
 
Last edited:
Nasser wouldn’t give up the pilgrimage money, he wasn’t stupid
Nothing changes other then Nasser cracking down radicals
Among Nasser's achievements was promoting a more moderate approach to faith through cooperation with Al-Azhar religious college. While he still preferred the separation of faith and state, he was a devout Muslim who worked hard to promote the spread of Islam. His main issue was with those who politicized the faith and insisted on regressive attitudes.

As such, he'd definitely keep the Hejaz religious, but he's focus on the more moderate faith. You know, like how Hejaz used to be before the Saud clan took over and made everything Wahhabite.
No, they are not. They are the descendants of the people who lived in Egypt before the Arab conquest. You don't believe me? Ask one. I did.
This is true; they're descendants of the original Egyptians who lived there before Omar Ibn Al-Khattab spread Islamic Caliphate rule to it. The Arabs interbred with them a lot, with the vast majority of the offspring being the 'Arab' population of Egypt today.

Funnily enough, one of Anthony Eden's gripes with Gamal Abdul Nasser was that Egypt was not a true Arab country, but rather a 'nation of mongrels' with only partial Arab descent.
 
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.

The US certainly wouldn't. But the USSR had a good relationship with Egypt, and provided most of its arms.
 
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?

First I think it would only be possible if Nasser's personal/ideological appeal were even greater, leading to Nassarite revolutions in the gulf monarchies, Libya and elsewhere, and if peaceful unifications occurred--and lasted. A great UAR wouldn't have been possible through conquest, because the US and NATO would've opposed it, and crushed Egypt as easily as they crushed Saddam's Iraq, and because even against other arabs, Nasser's forces did not perform in a stellar fashion. Fawzi's memoirs, in Reconstructing a Shattered Egyptian Army, show just how inept Nasser's army was.
 
Last edited:
The CIA, KGB, and Mossad carry out a fascinating joint operation that ends up with Nasser's state funeral.


I don't think this would've been a great idea. First the KGB wouldn't participate because Nasser was basically friendly to the USSR. If he was a winner, there would be even less reason to try it. As for the CIA and mossad, there would be no greater way to make Egypt implacably hostile than to murder Nasser. Even in the midst of ruinous failures, he was remarkably popular with Egyptians. Compare the number of mourners at his funeral in 1970 with those at any other.
 
I think it's generally accepted the UAR, in the sense of the Arab 'core regions' (whether using the HoI definition or the membership of the Arab League), is generally impossible or close to it without massive butterflies, potentially ones predating WW1.

However, the question becomes, what happens when you suddenly have a nation bigger than Continental Europe (sans USSR) and with the population to be in the top 10 most population nations forms in the regions known as the Middle East and North Africa?
 
However, the question becomes, what happens when you suddenly have a nation bigger than Continental Europe (sans USSR) and with the population to be in the top 10 most population nations forms in the regions known as the Middle East and North Africa?


Assuming such a state would be hostile to Israel, it would create a real dilemma for the US and its leaders. Such a state would've wielded enormous economic (as well as geopolitical) clout and used it more consistently in pursuit of a political agenda, notably pressuring other states to distance themselves from Israel. In light of the power of the pro-israel groups here, our politicians would have to walk a tightrope like the great wallenda or some such....
 
Assuming such a state would be hostile to Israel, it would create a real dilemma for the US and its leaders. Such a state would've wielded enormous economic (as well as geopolitical) clout and used it more consistently in pursuit of a political agenda, notably pressuring other states to distance themselves from Israel. In light of the power of the pro-israel groups here, our politicians would have to walk a tightrope like the great wallenda or some such....
It should be noted that a removal of the State of Israel and a restoration of the Arab nature of the pre-1900 territory are among the goals of the late Mr. Abdul Nasser. So it's possible the OP, by its nature, precludes the existence of the Israeli state, or has it replaced by something more amenable to the super-UAR, like a puppet Levantine Republic or even assimilated into the Arab empire.

However, assuming a scenario Israel still exists somehow as an independent state, Israel's biggest game-changer is its NBC arsenal. Quite simply, the limitations that ruled Israel's adversaries before no longer apply. Egypt has massive population, but a relatively small front on which to engage Israel. Syria has a bigger population than Israel, but lacks the front size, experience, and training to take it on, and the Golan Heights are excellent defensive territory. Lebanon had limited its combat role against Israel up until 1982, mostly because it has the smallest population (even compared to Israel) and a very narrow front with difficult terrain. Jordan has the largest front, but barely has a population larger than Israel. Even working together, none of the "Frontline Nations" could have hoped to challenge Israel, mostly because cooperation would have been difficult between competing, mutually suspicious Arab Regimes.

A unified super-UAR, though, is a monster Israel can't hope to defeat. It has a single leadership, so cooperation is not an issue (assuming inter-service rivalries don't end up being game-breakers). It can shift units anywhere within itself in the name of "security", so we'd have Israel potentially having to face 90% of the attack coming across the massive Jordanian border, meaning it would have to spread its defenses all round and eventually get overwhelmed. If the Arab army is as weak qualitatively as always, it can just make up with quantity, effectively burying the Israelis in bodies. If Nasser somehow managed to actually make the armed forces somewhat efficient and effective... well, then Israel's absolutely fucked, isn't it?

And the USA or Europe trying to force the UAR to heel is going to end up eating a massive fuel embargo and loss of a gigantic market; the UAR has a market of over 150 million, whereas Israel barely has 5 million people. Quite simply, Christian Zionist sentiment aside, the US cannot afford to antagonize the Arab titan.
 
A unified super-UAR, though, is a monster Israel can't hope to defeat. It has a single leadership, so cooperation is not an issue (assuming inter-service rivalries don't end up being game-breakers). It can shift units anywhere within itself in the name of "security", so we'd have Israel potentially having to face 90% of the attack coming across the massive Jordanian border, meaning it would have to spread its defenses all round and eventually get overwhelmed.

Israel would probably preempt (and acquire the more defensible line of the Jordan river) before arab preparations were half complete.

If the Arab army is as weak qualitatively as always, it can just make up with quantity, effectively burying the Israelis in bodies. If Nasser somehow managed to actually make the armed forces somewhat efficient and effective... well, then Israel's absolutely fucked, isn't it?

Lol, a unified arab world would help but....anyone who's read the literature on the Arab-Israel wars knows that arab armies have had awful issues. There are accounts of Israeli tank units repelling much larger arab forces with hardly any losses.
And I doubt Nasser would've made arab forces more efficient. That hardly seemed to be his priority in the OTL--at least prior to the '67 "wake up call." Officers were promoted on the basis of loyalty to the regime not expertise. Amer and Muhsin were examples. Fawzi's memoirs give other examples of terrible deficiencies in Egyptian forces.

And the USA or Europe trying to force the UAR to heel is going to end up eating a massive fuel embargo and loss of a gigantic market; the UAR has a market of over 150 million, whereas Israel barely has 5 million people. Quite simply, Christian Zionist sentiment aside, the US cannot afford to antagonize the Arab titan.

Certainly an arab titan--and the practical considerations mentioned--would impress foreign policy pros in the State Dept. But as a student of US politics for 50 years, I don't think the pro-Israel bunch should be underestimated! Even without actual arab political unity, pretty much the same situation already existed in 1973-74. The arab world was united in its backing for frontline states and imposed an oil embargo. But, despite what seemed to me to be a terribly impractical policy (of backing Israel at the expense of real interests), I perceived virtually no movement to dump Israel, either on Capitol Hill or at the grassroots level. Here in CT, the only people who publicly advocated a change in policy were a handful of neo-nazis...There were no demonstrations, no speeches, and little if any public commentary opposing support of Israel.
 
Last edited:
I suspect Israel’s nuclear arsenal might be quite public here, with the implications that it WILL be deployed, in full, the moment the first Arab tank crosses the border. The radioactive ruins of Jerusalem are not worth the cost being every city in the Arab world.
 
I suspect Israel’s nuclear arsenal might be quite public here, with the implications that it WILL be deployed, in full, the moment the first Arab tank crosses the border.

The Israelis are prudent to not proclaim they're a nuclear power. It would put a lot more pressure on arab/muslim regimes to counter the Israeli n-arsenal--and on their backers to help. They'd have begun earlier and redoubled their efforts. Of course the Israelis could bomb reactors but the problem with doing it under these circumstances (united arab "titan") is that it would probably trigger a war, and a war could be too costly, even if the Israelis were sure they could hold out.
 
A good way for Nasser to gain credibility is for him to allow Syria a little more autonomy and to support as much pan-Arab coups as possible. The Iraq-Jordan confederation failed due to a coup in Iraq. A successful coup that leads to Iraq joining the UAR will help balance out the power in the federation. And eventually it can get Jordan and Lebanon in the union as well.

Nasser can also get Libya, Tunisia, and even Algeria into the union. Algeria will be tough due to French presence but so as long he keeps the resistance supported they’ll be glad to work with Nasser. Sudan and Arabian Chad also have the potential as well as Yemen and maybe even Djibouti and Somalia. He would have to strike Israel right after the attack on USS Liberty so he can show some sympathy for the US for the terrorist attack caused by Israel. And maybe he can get Israel to not be as aggressive in exchange for peace since extra territory isn’t really an option (except for a tiny sliver of land that could connect Egypt and Jordan together). Nasser’s victory could destroy the credibility of other Arab leaders since his actions have made him into something of a god. He would have enough support to help topple the monarchies in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States and gain control. Of course the US will do everything to get them back and Nasser could shut off all oil supplies. Since the US is embroiled in Vietnam, the oil embargo will do severe damage to the economy and force the US to give up and recognize the UAR’s annexations.

Eventually Morocco, Western Sahara, Mauritania, and even the Comoros join. The UAR supports Eritrean independence and the independence of the Ethiopian Afar region and Somalian region as well as the Kenyan Somalian region whom after several slim referendums join the country. South Sudan gets independence albeit quietly since Nasser knows it’s not worth bothering with it, and instead makes an ally of the country. Nasser does buy territory (like how the US bought Alaska) from Mali and Niger. He know has Azawad and northern and central Mali under control. He even buys the small sliver of land from Nigeria controlling Lake Chad as well. Eventually he passes away and someone else takes control who integrates the federation and promotes economic growth, infrastructure, education, welfare, healthcare, and technological growth. The new leader decides to give Kurds autonomy from the federation and supports the Kurdish insurgency in Turkey. When Iran is shooken by the Revolution the UAR invades Khuzestan and takes it for its own. After that it makes official peace with Israel and moves on as a modern nation.

That’s how I would envision the UAR.
 
Nasser can also get Libya, Tunisia, and even Algeria into the union.

Libya would be the most lucrative prize.

Algeria will be tough due to French presence

Only down to '62.

He would have to strike Israel right after the attack on USS Liberty so he can show some sympathy for the US for the terrorist attack caused by Israel.

Lol, by the time the US Liberty was attacked, Egypt had already lost the '67 war. How could Nasser strike Israel without an air force and with his army crumbling?

And maybe he can get Israel to not be as aggressive in exchange for peace

Nasser didn't believe Israel was legitimate. He and most other arabs at the time thought its land belonged to the Palestinians.

He would have enough support to help topple the monarchies in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States and gain control. Of course the US will do everything to get them back and Nasser could shut off all oil supplies. Since the US is embroiled in Vietnam, the oil embargo will do severe damage to the economy and force the US to give up and recognize the UAR’s annexations.

The UAR could've annexed the gulf monarchies without much resistance from the US, provided the monarchies were overthrown from within and the new regimes accepted unity voluntarily.
 
Lol, by the time the US Liberty was attacked, Egypt had already lost the '67 war. How could Nasser strike Israel without an air force and with his army crumbling?

Did research on that and yeah, I thought that was in 1963. Maybe attack Israel earlier and force a truce if possible.

Nasser didn't believe Israel was legitimate. He and most other arabs at the time thought its land belonged to the Palestinians.

Well he will eventually try to move on to other pressing matters in the other Arab regions since they will be easier for him in the end.

The UAR could've annexed the gulf monarchies without much resistance from the US, provided the monarchies were overthrown from within and the new regimes accepted unity voluntarily.

Well Nasser does that of course. But obviously one would need to take the NATO reaction in account.
 
Did research on that and yeah, I thought that was in 1963. Maybe attack Israel earlier and force a truce if possible.

Too risky. See e.g. Burdet, Encounter with the Middle East. Because of Egyptian military deficiencies, which took time to rectify, 1970 was thought to be the earliest confrontation date.

Well he will eventually try to move on to other pressing matters in the other Arab regions since they will be easier for him in the end.

The wisest course would've been to strengthen the UAR to the greatest possible degree before contemplating war with Israel.

Well Nasser does that of course. But obviously one would need to take the NATO reaction in account.

Provided regime change in the gulf was the work of internal forces and subsequent unity voluntary, NATO wouldn't have been ina position to do much since these are soveriegn countries. Maybe the CIA would try something.
 
No, they are not. They are the descendants of the people who lived in Egypt before the Arab conquest. You don't believe me? Ask one. I did.

Right on the money. Heck, the Coptic language is the child of the original Egyptian language before Arabic came along. It's a prime example on how Arabic influence and Islam went hand in hand during those times.
 
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?

You know, it is possible for the original poster in a thread to change a mistaken title without destroying the thread. Just go to "Thread Tools" (on the upper right side of the page) and then "Edit Title." Then just substitute "his" for "her"...
 
Top