Wi: Successful Yom kipper war, Would Sadat be able to merge with his neighbors

In the event of successful yom kipper with pre 6 day war borders demilitarized and joint sovereignty over east Jerusalem between Israel and Jordan

Would Sadat be able to use the prestige from a victory to successfully merge with Sudan,Libya and possibly Syria and Iraq

What would be the impact on region with a successful union
 
In the event of successful yom kipper with pre 6 day war borders demilitarized and joint sovereignty over east Jerusalem between Israel and Jordan

Would Sadat be able to use the prestige from a victory to successfully merge with Sudan,Libya and possibly Syria and Iraq

What would be the impact on region with a successful union

A Greater Egypt with Libya and Sudan merging with Egypt could be a viable and successful country.
 
Merging with Sudan gives Egypt a ton of new problems (Sudan's lengthy internal conflict), and it's very underdeveloped too. Libya might be worth something though.
 
Merging with Sudan gives Egypt a ton of new problems (Sudan's lengthy internal conflict), and it's very underdeveloped too. Libya might be worth something though.

Libyan oil would be a great addition to the Egyptian economy. As for Sudan, autonomy for the South would ease many of the problems. Much greater control of the Nile would be a bonus.
 
In the event of successful yom kipper with pre 6 day war borders demilitarized and joint sovereignty over east Jerusalem between Israel and Jordan

Would Sadat be able to use the prestige from a victory to successfully merge with Sudan,Libya and possibly Syria and Iraq

No, as Jordan and Syria would have been unhappy with Egypt regaining Sinai and Gaza Strip, while not regaining the Golan and the West Bank.
Gaddafi was already part of a Union with Egypt and Syria, but all were unhappy with it: don't think a victory of Israel would paper over those cracks for long.
Iraq would be happy till all of Israel was gone, so hard to see them agreeing with a Union that lets them live.

And Sudan?
No way.
 
In the event of successful yom kipper with pre 6 day war borders demilitarized and joint sovereignty over east Jerusalem between Israel and Jordan

Yeah, that's definitely not happening. Mostly since Jordan wasn't involved in the Yom Kippur War (plus it's questionable that they even wanted the West Bank back). But also because the Arabs were definitely not after status quo ante

But let's say that the Ramadan War is successful and, er, well, we don't need to focus on what happens, really, for the purposes of our discussion.

Would Sadat be able to use the prestige from a victory to successfully merge with Sudan,Libya and possibly Syria and Iraq

Definitely not Syria or Iraq (they're not falling for that one again - even with a land connection that, uh, definitely doesn't follow the Mediterranean coast north of Gaza city). Also definitely not Libya (what would Qaddafi possibly have to gain? And he's strong enough that the people aren't going to overthrow him to join Egypt) Sudan is the most doable, since their government is still pretty unstable and fragile, its president doesn't enjoy much popular support, and Egypt could draw on historical ties to justify it - though I'm honestly not sure how much the Sudanese were into pan-Arabism (or, frankly, if the Egyptians considered them "Arab enough").

What would be the impact on region with a successful union

Probably pretty minimal, honestly. A more powerful Egypt might be able to throw its weight around a little better and promote pan-Arabism, but honestly, it's still pretty rough. More boots in Yemen, for example, still might not do anything. The Israel problem (if it's still around) needs structural changes to happen, not just more guns. Sudan, frankly, is completely destitute and will probably cost more in peacekeeping than it will generate in taxes and conscript soldiers. And, most importantly, the two OTL examples we have (UAR and Arab Federation) both fell apart very quickly.

Man, I feel like all I do is go around telling people how implausible their MidEast ideas are :(

EDIT:
Such would never happen, as the Israelis were willing to go nuclear to prevent such.

There's success and there's success and there's success (notably, OTL the Arab leaders called Yom Kippur a success, though God only knows how they spun that). There's definitely ways that the Arab forces can "defeat Israel" that don't involve Israel feeling scared for its existence, and even if it was, the more likely result is the US pushing the USSR to push the Arabs to halt. Israel is not and never was as nuke-happy as people seem to think. If nothing else, trust in enlightened self-interest, since any nukes going off in the Sinai, or, hell over Cairo and Damascus are going to be contaminating Israeli food and water for decades.
 
Also definitely not Libya
He did repeatedly try to merge with the neighboring arab countries

Egypt could draw on historical ties to justify it - though I'm honestly not sure how much the Sudanese were into pan-Arabism (or, frankly, if the Egyptians considered them "Arab enough"
Sudan was lead by a pan-Arabist at the time and is considered an Arab nation

Sudan, frankly, is completely destitute and will probably cost more in peacekeeping than it will generate in taxes and conscript soldiers
Second Sudanese civil started in 1983 and going off google Sudan did have similar gdp per capita as Egypt

OTL examples we have (UAR and Arab Federation)
Given Libya doesn't have many people and Sudan is just down the Nile,Wouldn't any revolt be non-exist or easily crushed
 
Last edited:
The Israelis have nukes and if it looks like defeat is imminent Nixon won't be able to convince them to "bring down the pillars" a la Samson option.

So I'm not sure how this is even possible.
 
Definitely not Syria or Iraq (they're not falling for that one again - even with a land connection that, uh, definitely doesn't follow the Mediterranean coast north of Gaza city). Also definitely not Libya (what would Qaddafi possibly have to gain? And he's strong enough that the people aren't going to overthrow him to join Egypt) Sudan is the most doable, since their government is still pretty unstable and fragile, its president doesn't enjoy much popular support, and Egypt could draw on historical ties to justify it - though I'm honestly not sure how much the Sudanese were into pan-Arabism (or, frankly, if the Egyptians considered them "Arab enough").

But would it last? There's a lot of racism in Egypt against the Sudanese. Anwar Sadat was called "Nasser's black poodle", for instance. You'd probably end up with a lot of Sudanese believing they are second-class citizens in their own country. Not to mention there'd be a flood of Sudanese north to Cairo and other major Egyptian cities. In the end, the union might as well be dissolved because the Sudanese are sick of Egyptian underdevelopment and racism and Egyptians are sick of the Sudanese flooding their cities and want the border controls back.
 
The Israelis have nukes and if it looks like defeat is imminent Nixon won't be able to convince them to "bring down the pillars" a la Samson option.

So I'm not sure how this is even possible.

I'd think before it came to that, the US Ambassador to the Soviet Union tells them to rein in their puppets, or the Sixth Fleet turns into the wind and starts lofting strike packages against Syria and Egypt.
 
Gaddafi was already part of a Union with Egypt and Syria

Na in the months prior to the 1973 war Ghadafy wanted a union with Egypt but Sadat's regime rejected it because in their view, the political liabilities outweighed acquisition of Libyan oil wealth (which says something about Ghadafy). IIRC around June 1973 Ghadafy sent a bunch of civilians marching toward egypt to demand unity but the Egyptians blew up part of the road to bar their progress.
 
Such would never happen, as the Israelis were willing to go nuclear to prevent such.


Depends on the nature and extent of a "successful" Egyptian campaign. Of course in real life Shazly envisaged a strategically offensive but tactically defensive strategy. There was no real possibility of breaking out of the bridgeheads and advancing anywhere near the Israeli border. The Egyptians would've won for all practical purposes had they refrained from wasting their armor on 10/14 and if Israel's planned canal crossing operation then failed with high losses (this nearly happened OTL).
Had that occurred, the Israelis, unable to beat Egypt or remain mobilized indefinitely, probably would've had to make major concessions to end the war.
 
Na in the months prior to the 1973 war Ghadafy wanted a union with Egypt but Sadat's regime rejected it because in their view, the political liabilities outweighed acquisition of Libyan oil wealth (which says something about Ghadafy). IIRC around June 1973 Ghadafy sent a bunch of civilians marching toward egypt to demand unity but the Egyptians blew up part of the road to bar their progress.

Throughout 1970 Qadhafi consulted with Egyptian and Sudanese leaders about how to achieve some form of union. Nasser died in September 1970, but Egyptian participation in the unity talks continued under his successor, President Anwar as Sadat. It was the young Qadhafi, however, who moved to assume Nasser's mantle as the ideological leader of Arab nationalism.

At the request of its new head of state, Lieutenant General Hafiz al Assad, the unity talks were expanded to include Syria. After further meetings, Qadhafi, Sadat, and Assad simultaneously announced in April 1971 the formation of a federation of Libya, Egypt, and Syria. The three heads of state signed a draft constitution in August that was overwhelmingly approved in referenda in all three countries. Sadat was named the first president of a council of heads of state that was to be the governing body for the Federation of Arab Republics (FAR), which came into existence on paper on January 1, 1972. Broad plans were drawn up to provide for a full-fledged merger affecting the legal systems, laws, employment, armed forces, and foreign policies of all three countries. Agreement on specific measures, however, eluded the FAR leaders, and the federation never progressed beyond making symbolic gestures of unity, such as the adoption of a common flag.

For Qadhafi, the FAR was a step on the road to achieving his ultimate goal: the comprehensive union of the "Arab Nation." Although he remained the federation's most ardent backer, Qadhafi was never satisfied with the approach taken by his Egyptian and Syrian partners toward what he termed the "battle plan" for confrontation with Israel. Nonetheless, he initiated talks with Sadat on full political union between Egypt and Libya, which would merge the neighboring countries into a single state within the framework of the FAR. http://countrystudies.us/libya/32.htm
 
Top