WI: UAR sticks together

[False Dmitri]

I need to research this farther. But what if the Syrian coup of 1961 had failed? The observation that the coup had some popular support may have motivated Nasser to allow more autonomy to the Syrians within the United Arab Republic. Iraq, already in the process of joining the UAR, would have become part of the federation on schedule within a year or so. Yemen (Sana'a) may have also drawn closer to the UAR.

So, assuming the federation can hold together, we end up with a very large power covering much of the Arab world, one that is as opposed to Jordan as it is to Israel. The Six Day War is butterflied away, but some united action against Israel seems in the cards.

So do we have SecularArabWank - or an even more endless and irretractable conflict?

 

[MacCaulay]

Hmmm...I'm reading a book on the Yom Kippur War right now, so my heads kind of in this area, too...let me do some reading as well.


I can't help but wonder if King Hussein of Jordan might end up being able to parlay his stance as a "moderate Arab" with the west to keep his stature in the west high, or make it even better.

Israel, in it's own way, may be more likely to initiate like the Six-Day War. It was (sort of) initiated by Israel, since they did start the air strikes. But they felt they were in danger, and if it seemed like there was this Pan-Arab nation surrounding them, then they would feel that they might just as well start the war while they were in a stronger position and get it over with.

The Israelis were always kind of fatalistic.

 

[False Dmitri]

Wow, I didn't think anyone had posted. Which is kind of surprising, since it touches so many current-event-type issues.

Based on your suggestion, suppose Israel attacked Syria & Egypt in 1962. The coup had shown the UAR's weakness. The UAR was more concerned with sticking it to the Hashemites than with Israel at the moment. And Iraq was on the verge of joining, creating a massive, three headed beast surrounding the Jewish State. Now or never!

How would such a war have gone? Military history is not my forte, so I have no idea whether the countries' relative strength would have been different. Egypt/Syria/Iraq would not have had Jordan on their side. Would Israel have attempted to seize the West Bank with Jordan as a neutral? I suspect not - fatalistic is one thing, but behaving like teh ev0l zi0nists is quite another. So for the time being, at least, The West Bank and East Jerusalem remain Jordanian... right?

 

[MacCaulay]

Wow, I didn't think anyone had posted. Which is kind of surprising, since it touches so many current-event-type issues.

It's cool I was kind of hoping you'd come back to it.

Based on your suggestion, suppose Israel attacked Syria & Egypt in 1962. The coup had shown the UAR's weakness. The UAR was more concerned with sticking it to the Hashemites than with Israel at the moment. And Iraq was on the verge of joining, creating a massive, three headed beast surrounding the Jewish State. Now or never!

How would such a war have gone? Military history is not my forte, so I have no idea whether the countries' relative strength would have been different. Egypt/Syria/Iraq would not have had Jordan on their side. Would Israel have attempted to seize the West Bank with Jordan as a neutral? I suspect not - fatalistic is one thing, but behaving like teh ev0l zi0nists is quite another. So for the time being, at least, The West Bank and East Jerusalem remain Jordanian... right?

Jordan was rarity among the Arab countries, in that it was Western trained and armed. Their Arab Legion was what really had made the only good showing against the Israelis in the Six-Day War in '67.

What the Egyptians offered was numbers and strength of quantity. They achieved this through a massive amount of Soviet weaponry, even acquiring some Bison bombers.

The Jordanians were the flip side of that. Their air force and army were pretty much the only military in the region that could go 1-on-1 with the Israelis and stand a chance.
But what the '67 War did was give the world that veneer of "Israeli military genius." Before that, the Israelis could conceivably have gotten lucky. They could've gotten independence and won the '56 war merely through favourable winds. But after destroying half the Arab air forces on the ground and taking the Sinai away from Egypt, no one could say they weren't good.

Besides Iraq's joining the UAR, what makes '62 jump out to you?

Perhaps you could give a rough timeline up to, say...mid-1961. That I'd get a better feel. I think you and me might be stronger on different aspects.

 

[Mark AH]

The key question is would the USSR still deliver weapons to a more powerful UAR? In 1961 France was still the main weapon supplier of Israel and the involvement of the USA was low. So the reaction of Russia had the key to success for the UAR. Because without arms they would have a problem.

 

[Electric Monk]

What if Suez goes for the Anglo-British forces? (Assuming no WWIII, obviously.)

Could we see that both as a need for a more powerful Arab state and one that isn't dominated by any single power? Because Nassar doesn't seem the type to take a hint.


Regardless of that an Arab state that covers a good chunk of the region is a major threat to Israel. I can't see them being happy about that (which is why winning Suez would reassure them quite a lot) so that may touch off something.

As for the USSR…*I don't know. It would be very interesting if the UAR turns to European arms/support as a way to partially escape the USSR/USA divide. Could the UAR convince more states to join? Jordan in particular would be a major grab, and could see the region shifting to a neutral Cold War stance.

 

[MacCaulay]

The key question is would the USSR still deliver weapons to a more powerful UAR? In 1961 France was still the main weapon supplier of Israel and the involvement of the USA was low. So the reaction of Russia had the key to success for the UAR. Because without arms they would have a problem.

Could we see that both as a need for a more powerful Arab state and one that isn't dominated by any single power? Because Nassar doesn't seem the type to take a hint.

As for the USSR…*I don't know. It would be very interesting if the UAR turns to European arms/support as a way to partially escape the USSR/USA divide. Could the UAR convince more states to join? Jordan in particular would be a major grab, and could see the region shifting to a neutral Cold War stance.

I believe the USSR was pretty much entrenched as the arms supplier to Egypt, Syria, and Iraq. What those countries provided the Soviets with was a solid source of hard currency in exchange for their weapons, and a good chance that the weapons would be used (information on their usefulness was always good).
The Warsaw Pact countries never could provide the USSR with that much cash. Who's got more money coming in from exports, Egypt from the Suez Canal, or Hungary from...being a Soviet puppet? It was that sort of thing.

This didn't mean that the Egyptians weren't interested in becoming independent. They were co-developing a light fighter with the Indians and Yugoslavians.
I'll have to find the article I've got on it. There's an interview that Military History did with the test pilot. They destroyed one of the prototypes on the ground, but they ended up coming out of it with a good jet engine that the Indians ended up developing into the Kaveri that they're using currently in their LCA.

I believe the Soviets would've looked on a UAR as something that might just be a better business partner. Obviously, they'd want to sell the UAR as much as they could, but the Israelis were cutting it real close during the '67 and '73 wars.
What the USSR might want to sell them was more naval forces, even though the Egyptians might not be interested in buying them after what happened to the Israeli destroyer Eilat in '67, sunk by Styx anti-ship missiles.
If the UAR could be convinced it wanted a naval force, it would increase it's dependency on the USSR for spare parts, weapons, radars, etc. It would in effect create a Soviet client state surface action group OUTSIDE the Bosporus.
If the Soviet Union strikes a deal that says something to the effect of "We give you cheap stuff if you give us cheap facilities," then that's a big problem for the US 7th Fleet in the Med.

Or, of course, they could go the route the Egyptians were going, and try going the middle route with India and Yugoslavia, trying to develop and field weapons systems that are basically heavily modded home-built copies of Soviet and Western systems.

 

[Electric Monk]

My question (setting aside all the reasons the USSR would very much want to keep supplying the UAR) is who else is looking to sell stuff?

At the time, IIRC, the USA and USSR were pretty dominant. So which hungry European country is looking to lock in oil and perhaps cut a better deal (i.e. helping the UAR set up their own licensed factories so they avoid the issues the Arab states had with the USSR and Iran with the USA)?

Sweden has a solid fighter industry. The French are, as noted, still backing the Israelis so they're out. The British (albeit not in my alternative winning Suez version)? Are the Italians up and running with stuff yet? South Africa, even?

Simply put the UAR would be best served by buying from somebody that isn't the USA or the USSR, and ideally that would involve the generally superior Western technology/training.

This didn't mean that the Egyptians weren't interested in becoming independent. They were co-developing a light fighter with the Indians and Yugoslavians.

Now that's interesting. I wonder who else could be persuaded to join some co-development contracts. Italians? Some East Asian companies?

 

[Atreus]

You probably need to get rid of Nasser to manage this. The initial reason for the UAR was that the Syrians thought that they could run things. But once Egypt asserts itself and Nasser proves that he is no puppet, the syrians decided that their experiment in unity was a failure and they pulled out via coup.

 

[Masri]

If the UAR had stuck together Libya might have joined. Back in the ‘70s Gaddafi tried to set up another Pan-Arab state along with Egypt and Syria so its possible he might decide to join the UAR at some point. Sudan is also a possibility but I’d say it’s somewhat less likely. Jordan might even come around if it decides that Israel is its biggest threat.

I wonder what Lebanon’s fate would be with a surviving UAR? Also what about Arafat and the PLO?

I think to have the UAR survive it needs to act more like a Middle Eastern EU+NATO, at least at first. Let Syrians/Iraqis/Whoever control their own local administration, bureaucracy, and military hierarchy, but loosely coordinate broad economic and diplomatic policy and military planning from Cairo.

In the case of war does Israel have the capability to launch a preemptive air strike on two fronts? I’ve heard that Israel’s air superiority was a major reason why the IDF performed so well during ’67 and that this was largely thanks to the surprise attack.

 

[Nicole]

If the UAR had stuck together Libya might have joined. Back in the ‘70s Gaddafi tried to set up another Pan-Arab state along with Egypt and Syria so its possible he might decide to join the UAR at some point. Sudan is also a possibility but I’d say it’s somewhat less likely. Jordan might even come around if it decides that Israel is its biggest threat.

I think you'd need a coup or something to get rid of the Hashemites in Jordan to have them join the UAR- not totally impossible, I guess, but they're fairly well entrenched at this point, it would take some major changes.

 

[Masri]

I think you'd need a coup or something to get rid of the Hashemites in Jordan to have them join the UAR- not totally impossible, I guess, but they're fairly well entrenched at this point, it would take some major changes.

You're probably right, but a lot of the Jordanian people and even the military was attracted to Pan-Arabism and if the monarchy is seen as the only thing standing in the way of Arab unity I think the monarchy would have been in real danger.

 

[MacCaulay]

You're probably right, but a lot of the Jordanian people and even the military was attracted to Pan-Arabism and if the monarchy is seen as the only thing standing in the way of Arab unity I think the monarchy would have been in real danger.

Well, one thing the Monarchy was seen as giving the military was the tools to give them victories. They had the Arab Legion, they had the M-60s and Hawker Hunters.

For the most part, the Jordanians were pretty much the only Arab country with equipment equivalent to the Israelis. And the scariest part to the Israelis was that they knew how to use it, as well.

King Hussein seemed to be quite good at walking the middle road. How long he could do that in a Middle East with a UAR in it is beyond me, though.