Unified Middle East

[EastCoastWizard]

Ok a couple questions as I am trying to work up a multi dimensional sliders/tangents setting. There will be not including earth 7 major alternate history settings. This POD starts with Saddam Husain's rise to power, where a Kurd rebellion, is putting pressure on their war with Iran. My goal is to create a powerful middle east which has expanded eastward crushing north Korea, as well as China, primarily by creating a different Saddam.

My ideas of how this might work would be the following:

-Saddam, after his political rise portrays himself as the unifier of the middle east, and proclaims Iraq the "Pillar of Unification". To gain support he quickly amends relations with the Kurds by issuing them greater rights and putting in place a representative from their people as a member of his council.

-Saddam begins to push Iran as a foe of middle eastern unification, and rallies support from any and all middle eastern peoples who would see the middle east gain power. To save face Saddam does make multiple peace talk requests with Iran.

-Once Saddam gains sufficient support Iraq and its allies decree that any nation so choosing to defy the unification effort shall be removed completely from power by force and their lands divided amongst the nations in the unification effort.

-After a bloody conflict provides a solid powerful middle east the "council" decides it must spread it's reach and looks to a largely unpopular Chinese, and north Korean government as its target. The UN's strong opposition to communism shows very little compassion offered to the two nations.

-China is the first country to bring down the wrath of the council, their massive numbers destroyed by powerful nerve attacks with massive drops of chemicals, having kill zones of well over 5 miles.

-As part of the Unions incentive for Chinese to defect to their nation by offering up and coming warlords designated "sectors" in which they could rule in relative peace. Each of the sectors would be approximately the same size as on another, and would be responsible for paying tribute in troops, resources, and need only follow the most important universal laws for the empire. To keep control the military activities of the Union were all controlled by the middle eastern council who deemed that their administrative guidance of all sectors allowed them better understanding of military resource deployment.

-When the middle east toppled China, they strategically allocated sectors so that the sector near the North Korean border was shorted land allotment and advised that as the spear head to the North Korean offensive would provide them with the Korean lands.

My questions are:
Though the middle east is politically unstable a middle eastern force without outside influence or support should be able to gain appeal like this, right?
What would an alliance of this sort call itself?
Does this seem plausible, and which of the nations would submit to Iraq's alliance first?
What would be the first steps in the push against China, as they are a large country, but with such a concentrated assault of dangerous chemicals how long could they withstand?
After their stabilization of the bulk of the east, would the next logical step be to "unify Africa", as it proves to be a politically unstable environment?

regards, Seth

 

[B_Munro]

Ok a couple questions as I am trying to work up a multi dimensional sliders/tangents setting. There will be not including earth 7 major alternate history settings. This POD starts with Saddam Husain's rise to power, where a Kurd rebellion, is putting pressure on their war with Iran. My goal is to create a powerful middle east which has expanded eastward crushing north Korea, as well as China, primarily by creating a different Saddam.

Oy. This is mostly bat-shit insane. (Saddam gains magical persuasion powers making the leaders of the middle east join his "union"? [1] Alien Space Bat magical chemical weapons and delivery systems? China's natural state of affairs after every war is warlordism? You do realize they have to cross Soviet territory to _get_ to China, right?).

I'm sorry to be so harsh, but this scenario doesn't meet the feeblest standards of plausibility. If you want a unified middle East by 2007, Saddam is probably too late: if you want a unified middle East that's conquered China - well, I'd recomend going back to the 19th century and getting to work on wanking the Ottoman Empire. Abdul Hamid Pasha can probably give you some pointers.

Bruce

Bruce

[1] Nasser, about 1000 times as popular as Saddam ever was, couldn't pull off a lasting union of even two Arab states at a time.

 

[bouscher]

LoL

Israel+Arab countries= peace...Sorry thats a wrong formula

I can tell you that basically, only 2 or 3 major unions ever existed:

Egypt and Syria, led by Nazer or whatever is his name in English also called the JAC (Joint Arab Community) and another alliance between Egypt and Jordan which was basically a Federation, but that broke pretty fast too.

You see, the Arabs have 22 countries, yet they are stupid enough not to unify them...and then people complain that Israel doesn't want to help create a Palestinian country

 

[rudebadger]

Saddam couldn't even pull off an invasion of Iran without that degenerating into an 8 year long stalemate. We're gonna need another Saddam to pull this POD off.

As for the rest of the Mid-East uniting, except for their hatred of Israel, they all pretty much hate each other almost as much.

 

[EastCoastWizard]

Him I was thinking along the lines of a much different Saddam, and not having a deadline of 07, as true "unification" (in my opinion) is would not be possible until after Saddam would have already passed away.
Assuming the above desired concept is not feasible, what would be a good era (if any) to create a unified middle east?
Regards, Seth

 

[Chengar Qordath]

Saddam is probably too late to try and unify the Middle East; by the time he takes power Pan-Arabism has lost quite a bit of popularity due to the several failed attempts at cobbling together some sort of small Arab federations others have mentioned. It would probably be better to have one of the earlier attempts at creating an Arab state by Nasser, the Hashemites, or Gaddafi be more successful if you really want to create a unified Arab state, but even then it would by no means be easy.

The Nasserite and Hashemite unification programs were actually created in opposition to each other, and the Hashemite Iraqi-Jordanion union was based on the dynastic ties between the two countries. Gaddafi's program seemed to have a healthy amount of theoretical support, but while Egypt, Syria, and Libya all liked the idea of a union they simply could not agree on what kind of union should be created.

Here's a basic idea, no idea how plausible it is; have Gaddafi's unification program make a bit more progress than OTL so that there is at least some kind of loose confederation, and combine that with Israel losing the Yom Kippur War. I would imagine that a victory like that would give the union a major boost in prestige and credibility, perhaps enough to make it actually be halfway viable.

 

[DuQuense]

First whe need to know what countries you are considering the Mideast.
I have seen everything from Morocco to Pakistan lumped into the Mid East.

For a Levant/Mesopotimia Union, I would look for a different WW 1.

 

[EastCoastWizard]

First whe need to know what countries you are considering the Mideast.
I have seen everything from Morocco to Pakistan lumped into the Mid East.

I would consider this chunk of countries/lands to be the middle east. If any near by outside sources could better fit the concept and aid in the plausibility I could include them as well.
Not all of the countries need to stay as well, any providing to much resistance to the mix would be forced into submision.
Regards, Seth

 

[Admiral Canaris]

I would consider this chunk of countries/lands to be the middle east. If any near by outside sources could better fit the concept and aid in the plausibility I could include them as well.
Not all of the countries need to stay as well, any providing to much resistance to the mix would be forced into submision.
Regards, Seth

Ouch, you've excluded Nasser's Egypt... Otherwise, that'd probably be the best bet. Saddam is, IMHO, way too late as an initial POD; maybe, if you try hard, you could work him in as Nasser's successor if you must have him in. But for it to be any sort of coherent entity that could embark on conquests abroad, it'd have to have been a united state for at least some decades.

Have Nasser be more successful in his pan-Arabism, let the Islamists take over in Saudi Arabia so he can form an unholy alliance with them, and make the Iranian Revolution a drawn-out civil war his successors can intervene in. Iraq, Jordan etc should step into line once North Africa and Arabia are part of the federation.[1]

With Soviet aid and Carter as President, a determined enough junta that can compromise on ideology and nationality should be able to pull it off, even if it's far-fetched. Baathism could thus also be useful, since it's basically a combination between Socialism and Islam, the ultimate totalitarian ideology, and one that should be able to co-exist with Shariah purists... at least till the regime is free to deal with them. Syria, Lebanon and the rest should be more or less Baathist at the time and join up accordingly.

But... this alliance/empire/whatever has to leave Israel alone, that's the bottom line, or else the US will give them grief. Also: continue to sell them cheap oil, for much the same reasons, at least till they've consolidated.

For China to fall to them, you need massive PODs of Stirling-scale convenience. Perhaps hard-line Maoists remain in charge, so Communism falls there too in '91 and there's chaos so they can step in and at least grab Sinkiang?

Well, that's a start. Hope I've given you some ideas, and sorry if I come across as too harsh a critic.

[1]You could call it simply the United Arab Republic, like Nasser did. Or you could have Saddam rename it into something pompous, like the Greater Anti-Infidel Two Rivers's Country Union Grand Alliance or whatever.

 

[Ridwan Asher]

With Soviet aid and Carter as President, a determined enough junta that can compromise on ideology and nationality should be able to pull it off, even if it's far-fetched. Baathism could thus also be useful, since it's basically a combination between Socialism and Islam, the ultimate totalitarian ideology, and one that should be able to co-exist with Shariah purists... at least till the regime is free to deal with them. Syria, Lebanon and the rest should be more or less Baathist at the time and join up accordingly.

Even wikipedia disagree with you....

Link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baathism

AND.... : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Aflaq

 

[Admiral Canaris]

You will also notice that Saddam was (at least officially) fiercely Moslem, built any number of Mosques during his reign, and used his pro-Islam sentiment to gather support. Also, Syria's Baath regime certainly co-operates well with Iran. I was talking more of Saddam's variety than the original ideology as such. The real reason, IMHO, that Baathism and Islamism don't always co-exist very well is that both, like all totalitarianisms, want all the power for themselves. A Nasser/Saddam figure should easily be able to form some kind of synthesis in name as well as in practice.

 

[Ridwan Asher]

You will also notice that Saddam was (at least officially) fiercely Moslem, built any number of Mosques during his reign, and used his pro-Islam sentiment to gather support. Also, Syria's Baath regime certainly co-operates well with Iran. I was talking more of Saddam's variety than the original ideology as such. The real reason, IMHO, that Baathism and Islamism don't always co-exist very well is that both, like all totalitarianisms, want all the power for themselves. A Nasser/Saddam figure should easily be able to form some kind of synthesis in name as well as in practice.

Your PoV is pretty well biased I see...

1) In fact, Saddam was still a secular. He was close to the Christians. He liked them! What a very religious Islamist he was, hmm....

And before anything said from about Nasser as being Islamic, you should know that Nasser actually imprisoned Islamists!

2) The thing between Iran and Syria is actually only an alliance of convenience, and no more. What are you expecting it to be ?

3) The real reason why Islam(ism? maybe you'd know it as) and Baathism don't coexist very well is because Baathism is secularistic, leftists, and therefore incompatible with Islamism!

May I give you some advice ? I think you should stop to rely on popular biases and public opinions in regards of the two subjects, especially about Islamism. It'll only make you look ignorant and sentimental.

 

[Admiral Canaris]

Your PoV is pretty well biased I see...

1) In fact, Saddam was still a secular. He was close to the Christians. He liked them! What a very religious Islamist he was, hmm....

And before anything said from about Nasser as being Islamic, you should know that Nasser actually imprisoned Islamists!

2) The thing between Iran and Syria is actually only an alliance of convenience, and no more. What are you expecting it to be ?

3) The real reason why Islam(ism? maybe you'd know it as) and Baathism don't coexist very well is because Baathism is secularistic, leftists, and therefore incompatible with Islamism!

May I give you some advice ? I think you should stop to rely on popular biases and public opinions in regards of the two subjects, especially about Islamism. It'll only make you look ignorant and sentimental.

1. a) That may well have been him privately. I know he liked French wines and all that. He wasn't religious. But the important thing here is the image he portrayed. And that one was very pro-Islam. Heck, he was one of the initial suspects for 9/11!

As I see it, few dictators have actually been very big on whatever ideology they've been espousing. Stalin wasn't really a Marxist, Mussolini wasn't really a fascist, Mugabe isn't very Socialist etc... the case could perhaps even be made that Hitler wasn't very Nazi (compared to a lot of other more extreme Nazis)! The point is, power's what they're out for, and what works, goes.

1. b) I didn't say Nasser was an Islamist. IIRC, he was an Arab Socialist (or whatever in English). That didn't stop him from both co-operating with the Soviets and jailing Egyptian Marxists.

2. Exactly. So a somewhat deeper such alliance wouldn't be too far-fetched, much like the Nazis incorporating both Nationalism and Socialism. Also, I think I made the initial premise clear that the Islamists would only be tolerated till they could be securely rooted out (with perhaps some token remnant in the Party name or somesuch)...

3. Plenty of ideologies less compatible have co-operated in the past. Also, I think I recall the Ayatollah saying something about Marxism and Islam(ism, I take it) not being contrary to each other.

My view is simply that on these levels, what ideology you support or whether it's right or left isn't very important. I think you overestimate the significance of ideology to sheer power gaming.

And at least Saddam's Baathism was Islamic, if perhaps not purely Islamist. He said so himself, and he should know. Per above...

 

[EastCoastWizard]

Well Saddam is not a clincher, I only chose him because it was the first thing I thought of. As far as the amount I consider the middle east to be, I actually looked at a series of pictures with a search for “middle east” and took the one that showed up most often. Upon reading through the responses I have gotten it seems that I might want to reconsider my time frame. I am thinking it may be best to have things dating back to possibly the rise of the Islamic empire having it create a more solid lasting nation.

I think I might start looking further back into history and revisit this idea, though I would appreciate continued input and opinions.
Regards, Seth

 

[Roberto]

Oh god. So many biases and forms of ignorance. Look, EastCoastWizard, and Admiral Canaris, you obviously don't know much about what you're talking about. I don't mean to be rude, but go find out about this topic from someplace other than biased friends or blogs or wikipedia.

 

[Leo Caesius]

I honestly hate to get involved in these kinds of debates, so I'm just going to say my two cents and leave.

First, Bruce is right. Even though Saddam was seen (during the Iraqi heyday of the 70s) as the new Nasser, even Nasser couldn't keep the UAR together. For Saddam to succeed where Nasser did not would require ASBs, especially after the precedent of failure established by the UAR. Also note that very few Arab leaders enjoy the sort of cache that is required to be a unifying figure, even within their own countries. Arabs are just as suspicious of and even antagonistic towards their own governments as non-Arabs are of Arab governments. I think it was the famous poet Mahmoud Darwish who said that the chief problem in the Middle East is not the one Israel which occupies Palestine but the 22 "Israels" that occupy the rest of the Arab world.

Secondly, while pure Baathism was supposed to be "secular," for a given definition of secular, neither Iraq pre-2003 nor the Syria of Hafez al-Asad were truly secular states. Syria's constitution requires that its president be a Muslim and that Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) be the principal source of legislation. Iraq did not go so far in its pre-2003 constitution, but did state right up front that Islam was the official religion of the state, and that the President must take his oath "by Allah Almighty," not generally the sort of things you'd expect from a "secular" republic. In fact, it's arguable whether either is a truly Baathist state in anything but name, given that despite their common ideology they've been at ends far more than they've collaborated. The common Baathist ideology certainly did not prevent Hafez al-Asad from joining the coalition against Saddam's Iraq in the first Gulf War.

Even if neither Syria nor pre-2003 Iraq was a truly Baathist state, Baathism itself wasn't exactly "secular" in the western sense. Michel Aflaq, the ideological father of Baathism, famously said that all Arab nationalists - especially Christians such as himself - must be prepared to love Islam and accept it as the most precious aspect of their Arab identity. He allegedly converted to Islam on his deathbed.

While both Hafez al-Asad and Saddam Hussein are well-known for having put down Islamists in their own country, they did so largely because these Islamists posed a threat to their own power, not out of any secular sentiment. The former, a Shi'i Muslim, albeit one from a small extremist sect, put down a rebellion of Sunni Islamists, who purport to represent the majority of the population in his country; the latter, a Sunni Muslim, put down a rebellion of Shi'i Islamists who purport to represent the majority of the population in his country. Both regimes perpetuate a bias which is clearly religious in origin, and both have made use of Islam to bolster their own legitimacy. Asad had no problems building mosques and madrassas and even erecting a few statues of himself in traditional Islamic garb, and went to great lengths to get a fatwa from Grand Ayatollah Fadlallah declaring his Islamic bona fides. His son Bashar regularly invokes Islam in his speeches and famously instructed his mosques to declare a jihad against the occupiers in Iraq. Hussein also built some of Iraq's largest and most opulent mosques, at the expense of the state, including the Umm al-Ma'arik Mosque, in which he proudly displayed a Qur'an written using fifty pints of what was allegedly his own blood.

In short, while I don't find this scenario plausible, I think you're being unnecessarily (and unjustifiably) harsh on EastCoastWizard and (particularly) Admiral Canaris.

 

[EastCoastWizard]

I never tried to say I knew a great deal about what I am talking about I specifically was throwing out general knowledge which I have, and inquiring from those who know more on the subject. All I am looking for is a series of factors which could contribute to a unified middle east. I would love to hear from some one who knows more on the subject, as you seem to AHFanatic.

Now one thing I am debating is that in 1270 it is reported that Muslims made development in (not invented) gunpowder, but never really made wide use of it. I know they had developed things like the torpedo, and small clay grenades. If they were to create more refined easily reproduced weapons like this it may help them better assert their dominance.

Now what I am thinking possibly is that the Mamluk as a slave military class had risen to power in Egypt around 1250 to claim Egypt for their own. Now around 1290 the Mamluk nation in Indian declined, if they had retreated to the safety of Egypt increasing the Mamluk ranks there. This increase in military power, and Mamluk saturation of the populace, coupled with a more refined development of gunpowder technology may have been able to give the nation the boost they needed to gain more power early on and survive beyond around 1500.

Now my thoughts as to the increase in potential power of the Mamluk in Egypt is that they would be a large thorn in the side of a growing Ottoman empire, and through expansion north east cutting off Ottoman expansion into the east. Through a push into the Mediterranean with small fast ships armed with primitive torpedoes they prove to be a fearsome naval problem, dissuading the Ottoman from expansion into north Africa, and sending them in the direction of Europe with a peace treaty between the two developing nations. During later years the Mamluk would develop a city state like system of government ruled over by a general council, and would sea an expansion into the African continent by the Egyptian end of the Empire, and into the Asia by the middle Eastern continent to take advantage of the fertile plains.

(Though this may be another crack pot idea, it seems to have a bit more potential, if people agree that this may be a better POD I will close this thread out and move it to the POD pre-1900 board)

Regards, Seth

 

[Sovietdolphin]

Even if the Middle East unified post-World War II, they could NOT beat China - nor would they have any reason to. I can't really see any feasible, practical reasons to do so. Going back to the Ottomans, it's more likely to have a unified Middle East - but, still, the Ottomans are gonna be tough as balls to conquer China! And there remains the question of how to get to China: through India, or through the Soviet territory and/or Russia's near abroad of Central Asia? Another question remains: are outside powers - i.e. the Europeans, the Americans, even the Japanese - going to just sit back and watch the Middle East swallow up China and North Korea? (The idea that the United Nations wouldn't do anything seems kinda silly, since China has a permanent Security Council position, too.) What kind of pan-Middle Eastern council is going to authorize attacking the world's most populous nation? What kind of gain were they predicting, considering that there is gonna be a massive demographic change, i.e. non-Arab, non-Muslim, recently defeated peoples becoming the majority in their territory?

Call me a skeptic.

I suggest that any discussion about the Middle East uniting and conquering China should, at the very least, be in the Before 1900 forum. It's always possible that any of a number of older Muslim empires could hold together, and even become stronger than they were OTL. It's always possible that China could convert to Islam, or, at the very least, culturally Arabify or Persify over time. An empire based in the Middle East - maybe Persian - could conquer Tibet and Xinjiang, and cultural exchange could be pronounced. Probably in a series of wars, most likely taking advantage of internal Chinese struggles at first, the Muslim empires could gain influence and control in China. Hey, by the twentieth century - maybe even earlier! - China could very well be controlled from the Middle East.

HOWEVER, I can't think of this logically happening in the twentieth century. It can't start with Saddam, certainly - like, thirty years - or even with Gaddafi or Nasser. Taking away China's independence would be a task of centuries.

 

[Keenir]

You see, the Arabs have 22 countries, yet they are stupid enough not to unify them...and then people complain that Israel doesn't want to help create a Palestinian country

what do those have to do with one another? *is baffled*

 

[Chengar Qordath]

Here's an idea for an almost halfway plausible way (or maybe just a Turko-wank ... Abdul would be proud) to have a semi-unified Middle East that is at least in a position to engage in military action against China, if not actually conquer it.

The Ottoman Empire stays neutral in World War I, taking advantage of the relative distraction of the European powers to toss out the Capitulations, make some painful but neccessary reforms, and reduce foreign influence in the Middle East while increasing their own. By the end of the war the Ottomans are in a much stronger political and economic position, and have more or less brought the rest of OTL Saudi Arabia under their influence.

Assume that as a result of the pressures of World War I Russians still collapses more or less as per OTL, and the Ottomans see an opportunity to use pan-Turkist sentiment to gain control of Central Asia during the chaos, and soon a flow of supplies and "volunteers" is flowing into 'stans. The Soviets are unable to subdue Central Asia, and the newly independent states form close ties with the Ottoman Empire.

As World War II approaches the Ottomans begin to benefit greatly from their oil wealth, and the Turkish states in Central Asia form close ties with the Chinese warlord state of Sinkiang. The Ottomans occupy Iran when rumors indicate that the Shah may be sympathetic to the German cause, and agree to provide logistical support to the Allies in exchange for Britain ceding its sphere of influence in the Arabian peninsula and the USSR formally giving up any claims to Central Asia. With Iran now under Ottoman control they border their Central Asian satellite, and plans to establish a greater pan-Turkish state are drawn up. By 1944 when it is clear that Allied victory is inevitable, the Ottomans join the Allies and assist in the liberation of Europe, playing a key role in driving German forces out of the Balkan penninsula.

In exchange for aiding in the final victory (and a promise to respect British economic interests in the region) the Ottomans are granted a UN Mandate over Iran, though the territory is de-facto annexed into Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans unify with their Central Asian bretheren in 1947, and maintain close ties with the Turkic warlord state of Sinkiang. When the PRC invades Sinkiang in 1949 to re-unify the rogue warlord state with the rest of China tensions between the China and the Ottomans begin to rapidly rise...

Yeah ... that's almost certainly a Turko-wank ... fun to write though.