WI: A Greater Hashemite Kingdom

Alright, so a various times Jordan (currently), Iraq and Syria (up until their respective revolutions) were ruled by Hashemites, who themselves
came from, and ruled the Hejaz.

So, what if what if the coup's/revolution's in Syria and Iraq don't happen or are unsuccesful and evnetually the three nations united into a
single United Hashemite Kingdom, how would this affect the region and the world overall?


A map of what it'd look like;

UHK.png
 
Last edited:

Rush Tarquin

Gone Fishin'
If they become as reasonable as Jordan now is, it could be a very good thing. Then again, Jordan had to go through a lot of humiliation and just plain bad luck. It may not have become as amenable if it were acting from a position of greater power.

Without revolutions, there's little chance of Soviet backing since the King was firmly against it. The Americans will probably want to support the Kingdom to prevent an Arab Nationalist revolution and Soviet realignment. They may even be able to buy the Kingdom's acceptance of Israel, if America still cares about Israel and it hasn't realigned itself with the Soviets.

One of the reasons Middle Eastern states have been so prone to coups and revolutions is that they have small populations where the presence of even numerically small minorities has lead to a lot of unrest. With each catastrophe which has befallen the Middle East, minorities get shifted around into neighbouring states and set in motion the next catastrophe. So an uber-Hashemite Kingdom might minimise that sort of instability.

Hegemony by an ethnic/religious minority is the sort of thing that creates the Syrian and previously the Iraqi government's imperative to direct anger outwards to stop an uprising. Jordan several years after Black September is a possible forecast of how an Arab country behaves when this isn't an issue.

The potential drawbacks would be:

1. That it could wipe out Israel in one of the wars (assuming it could get the many disparate groups within its borders to effectively cooperate in achieving that goal)
2. Instances of ethnic cleansing (though comparing to OTL ME history...)
3. It could result in an even worse Arab-Iranian rivalry since there is now a clear leader of the Arab states in the conflict (what Saddam was trying to be)
 
Take that West Bank off of the map! Butterflies prevent its existence - depending on how this nation does against the Israelis (honestly, I'm not convinced it'll be much luckier), there won't be a West Bank. Even if Israel does take that territory, they may give it back in a peace deal (as was the original plan), or opt to fully integrate it. Plus, who knows what they hell is going on with the Palestinians here...
 
Take that West Bank off of the map! Butterflies prevent its existence - depending on how this nation does against the Israelis (honestly, I'm not convinced it'll be much luckier), there won't be a West Bank. Even if Israel does take that territory, they may give it back in a peace deal (as was the original plan), or opt to fully integrate it. Plus, who knows what they hell is going on with the Palestinians here...
Another possible butterfly is the Hatay territory (the area of Antioch and Alexandretta) which in an ATL might have stayed with Syria; and one thing that people usually seem to get wrong in their maps is that they forget to use the pre-1965 borders of Jordan.
 
Another possible butterfly is the Hatay territory (the area of Antioch and Alexandretta) which in an ATL might have stayed with Syria; and one thing that people usually seem to get wrong in their maps is that they forget to use the pre-1965 borders of Jordan.

I don't think Turkey is gonna be willing to give up territory, and it'd still be more powerful than the UHK.


Take that West Bank off of the map! Butterflies prevent its existence - depending on how this nation does against the Israelis (honestly, I'm not convinced it'll be much luckier), there won't be a West Bank. Even if Israel does take that territory, they may give it back in a peace deal (as was the original plan), or opt to fully integrate it. Plus, who knows what they hell is going on with the Palestinians here...

Well, it's supposed to happen in the mid 20th century, so perhaps it formed after the war, or Israel attacked it anyways, never put anything past Israel.

If you'll notice Israel does'nt have Golan in the map.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Hatay was a part of French Syria for quite some time, Turkey coud have lost all claims on it in time, OTL the French gave in, TTL Syria is not French.
 
I don't think Turkey is gonna be willing to give up territory, and it'd still be more powerful than the UHK.
Hatay was part of the original Syrian mandate and then it was seized by Turkey in 1938. But if your POD is after then, then yeah, I imagine it would be Turkish.

Also, have you ruled out Lebanon being part of this Hashemite state? Because Lebanon was united with French Syria for some time, and it seems like Syria has always had designs on it.
 
Also, have you ruled out Lebanon being part of this Hashemite state? Because Lebanon was united with French Syria for some time, and it seems like Syria has always had designs on it.

I was envisioning it being in the early 50's, so Lebanon would'nt be included, as they were already independent.
 

Rush Tarquin

Gone Fishin'
I was envisioning it being in the early 50's, so Lebanon would'nt be included, as they were already independent.

I think it's probable OTL Syria's Alawites would migrate to Lebanon after the establishment of the UHK, making things even messier in poor Lebanon.
 

Hashasheen

Banned
1. This is my type of thread. :p

Hatay was part of the original Syrian mandate and then it was seized by Turkey in 1938. But if your POD is after then, then yeah, I imagine it would be Turkish.
2. There was in fact a referendum in Hatay to decide its future. The Turks won. The King of Jordan was also willing to recognise it belonging to Turkey in any invasion of Syria (much more likely than you think and only averted by the Arab-Israeli war of 1948).

Also, have you ruled out Lebanon being part of this Hashemite state? Because Lebanon was united with French Syria for some time, and it seems like Syria has always had designs on it.
3. Lebanon would never have been part of a Hashemite Kingdom. Too many minorities and issues to deal with, plus open French influence made that a no-no.

Why isn't Arabia part of the Empire, surely in this TL they would have kicked the Al Saud family out?
4. Depending on the time, Hejaz might be a part of the Kingdom, or it might be reconquered if oil hasn't been discovered. Saudi's were infamous for their versatility and springing back from defeat though.

5.As for its composition, I'm assuming OTL Syria, Iraq, Jordan and the defined Palestinian territories would make up this Kingdom. Integration of the Palestinians might easily occur and their biggest issue would be revolution from the officer corps and modernisation, which is what plagued Syria and Iraq during both their royal and republican years.

6. I'm actually planning this TL as soon as I have enough research, time and planning saved up to accomplish it.
 
Alright, so a various times Jordan (currently), Iraq and Syria (up until their respective revolutions) were ruled by Hashemites, who themselves
came from, and ruled the Hejaz.

The Hashemites in Syria were overthrown by the French, not by some revolution.
 
Don't get your hopes up on it being any time soon. Unlike my other ... less memorable TL's, I want this one to be my crowning masterpiece.
But...but...that implies that it will be your last, albeit your finest, work. Surely you do not mean to stop writing TLs after this one?
 
Another possible butterfly is the Hatay territory (the area of Antioch and Alexandretta) which in an ATL might have stayed with Syria; and one thing that people usually seem to get wrong in their maps is that they forget to use the pre-1965 borders of Jordan.
The disputed area Turkey and Syria- or the republic from Indiana Jones that had a king? :D
 
Why the Hashemite Kingdom shown in your map doesn't include Hijaz? Hijaz is fundamental, keeping its control means keeping the control of Holy Macca and Medina and winning a sure legitimation before of all ME peoples. A Hashemite Kingdom (with Hijaz) could be a dream: a modern kingdom, no Jihad, a reasonable settlement with the Jewish State. Is it a Middle Eastern Utopia?
 
Why the Hashemite Kingdom shown in your map doesn't include Hijaz? Hijaz is fundamental, keeping its control means keeping the control of Holy Macca and Medina and winning a sure legitimation before of all ME peoples. A Hashemite Kingdom (with Hijaz) could be a dream: a modern kingdom, no Jihad, a reasonable settlement with the Jewish State. Is it a Middle Eastern Utopia?

Because the PoD is after Nejd and Hedjaz united to form Saudi Arabia.

Note I've changed the initial map to include most of the West Bank as part of the UHK, however I figure that it was sort of inevitable that Israel
would try and get Jerusalem, so the borders are'nt 100% exact pre-Arab War.
 
Last edited:
You also probably want to put the Golan in Israel; it's considered fairly essential for their security, both because it's the head of their water supply, and also because it's a great place to launch missiles from onto the Israeli heartland. If there are any conflicts between Israel and the UHK, the Golan will be a primary objective.
 
Top