1970s: Global Wrath (Early MT/OOC/OPEN)

[American Pere Housh]

IC post up. If we can become allies, I can assist you in taking the remaining independent Arab nations and maybe together we can take out Gaddafi in Libya.

Gaddafi was pro-Nasserist and is also pro-UAR. He was that way IRL and since he is an NPC he is also that way in this RP. There would be no need to go to war over Libya to take it.

Tunisia and Lebanon are whole other stories though, as are the Trucial States.

Hmm ok

[Kenobot]

IC post up. If we can become allies, I can assist you in taking the remaining independent Arab nations and maybe together we can take out Gaddafi in Libya.

Gaddafi was pro-Nasserist and is also pro-UAR. He was that way IRL and since he is an NPC he is also that way in this RP. There would be no need to go to war over Libya to take it.

Tunisia and Lebanon are whole other stories though, as are the Trucial States.

Tunisia I suspect I'd need to talk to France first to allay any fears.
Lebanon is last on my list of states to add to the republic. It would make our Saudi Arabian occupation look simple.
The Trucial states will be tricky because we'll want to talk to the Imperial Federation about that.
Oman will likely be one of our first targets given it's in the middle of a civil war.
Libya however is our first and foremost target for integration.

They aren't big fans of us given we are more a socialist-social democracy leaning republic whereas they are reactionary monarchies. Plus we are comprised of Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria and occupied Saudi Arabia, so we already control the good and important parts of the Arab world.
But peace between us is ideal given our ambitions

IC post up. If we can become allies, I can assist you in taking the remaining independent Arab nations and maybe together we can take out Gaddafi in Libya.

Thank you! We'll be negotiating with Gaddafi

[Monsone]

Gaddafi was pro-Nasserist and is also pro-UAR. He was that way IRL and since he is an NPC he is also that way in this RP. There would be no need to go to war over Libya to take it.

Tunisia and Lebanon are whole other stories though, as are the Trucial States.

Tunisia I suspect I'd need to talk to France first to allay any fears.
Lebanon is last on my list of states to add to the republic. It would make our Saudi Arabian occupation look simple.
The Trucial states will be tricky because we'll want to talk to the Imperial Federation about that.
Oman will likely be one of our first targets given it's in the middle of a civil war.
Libya however is our first and foremost target for integration.

I know I've said this a million times, but actually invading some of these places is not going to go over well with the locals or with ther foriegn backers. The Trucial States are the IF's Middle-Eastern playground, as is Oman (despite it being in a civil war). Lebanon has a very powerful Christian minority who looks up to France, and for the most part, many Muslims in Lebanon are also relatively content with the status quo (mainly because a UAR takeover would mean capital flight to France thanks to the Christians leaving because of fears of their money and assets being nationalized). Tunisia is complicated because this French mistake. However, Tunisia is still heavily reliant on foriegn tourists and European markets for it's economy along with foriegn investment. Joining the UAR would have a detrimental effect on the foriegn investment part because of Nasser's policies of nationalization (Tunisia did have colectivist policies, but not to the extent of those enforced by Nasser, and by 1970 IRL they where being rolled back because the populace wasn't really happy with them).

[Kenobot]

Tunisia I suspect I'd need to talk to France first to allay any fears.
Lebanon is last on my list of states to add to the republic. It would make our Saudi Arabian occupation look simple.
The Trucial states will be tricky because we'll want to talk to the Imperial Federation about that.
Oman will likely be one of our first targets given it's in the middle of a civil war.
Libya however is our first and foremost target for integration.

I know I've said this a million times, but actually invading some of these places is not going to go over well with the locals or with ther foriegn backers. The Trucial States are the IF's Middle-Eastern playground, as is Oman (despite it being in a civil war). Lebanon has a very powerful Christian minority who looks up to France, and for the most part, many Muslims in Lebanon are also relatively content with the status quo (mainly because a UAR takeover would mean capital flight to France thanks to the Christians leaving because of fears of their money and assets being nationalized). Tunisia is complicated because this French mistake. However, Tunisia is still heavily reliant on foriegn tourists and European markets for it's economy along with foriegn investment. Joining the UAR would have a detrimental effect on the foriegn investment part because of Nasser's policies of nationalization (Tunisia did have colectivist policies, but not to the extent of those enforced by Nasser, and by 1970 IRL they where being rolled back because the populace wasn't really happy with them).

I literally outlined that this would be complicated, so yes it would be difficult. I am not saying that this will happen in 3 posts; heck I doubt it'd happen by the end of the RP, but it is nonetheless *possible*. Idk how the Bizerte crisis makes things complicated for Tunisia given the French did end up handing the base back? As for the foreign tourists thing; we aren't a pariah state and aren't closed off entirely. As a federation, Tunisia being a constituent state would have the autonomy to continue their more free-market tendencies with some concessions and minor nationalizations.

[Monsone]

Idk how the Bizerte crisis makes things complicated for Tunisia given the French did end up handing the base back?

Yes, the French did hand the base back, after fighting off the Tunisians and inflicting civilian as well as military casualties (and as if to add to the insult, the base was handed back a three years after the fact in 1964). The crisis also mared Franco-Tunisian relations well into the 1970s and in general caused there to be an uptick in anti-Western sentiment in Tunisia.

However, by the late 1960s there have been more free-market reforms that hav been implemented by the Tunisian government. These reforms are above all designed to quell some of the populace's growing hatred of Bourguiba. Tunisia being on France's doorstep and all is also watched like a hawk by France. It's very possible that if France grows tired of Bourguiba they could just depose him, and that might very well happen if Bourguiba crosses some lines.

[Dahyan]

In this Israel, Palestinians are Israeli citizens and thus have equal rights to their Jewish,Christian and Druze counterparts. I am willing to be friends with you but wouldn't that piss off your other Arab allies?

They aren't big fans of us given we are more a socialist-social democracy leaning republic whereas they are reactionary monarchies. Plus we are comprised of Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria and occupied Saudi Arabia, so we already control the good and important parts of the Arab world.
But peace between us is ideal given our ambitions

You do realise that the reactionary monarchies were/are actually the ones logically willing to negotiate with Israel, whereas the Socialist-leaning republics are not, right?

Even in contemporary Egypt, studies have shown around 90% of Egyptians want nothing to do with Israel and oppose the governments rapprochement with the Zionists. And that is after 40 years of official Egyptian-Israeli relations.

Going full-on 180° as Nasser and signing peace with the Zionists in 1970 would cause civil war at the very least.

[Bentus]

They aren't big fans of us given we are more a socialist-social democracy leaning republic whereas they are reactionary monarchies. Plus we are comprised of Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria and occupied Saudi Arabia, so we already control the good and important parts of the Arab world.
But peace between us is ideal given our ambitions

You do realise that the reactionary monarchies were/are actually the ones logically willing to negotiate with Israel, whereas the Socialist-leaning republics are not, right?

Even in contemporary Egypt, studies have shown around 90% of Egyptians want nothing to do with Israel and oppose the governments rapprochement with the Zionists. And that is after 40 years of official Egyptian-Israeli relations.

Going full-on 180° as Nasser and signing peace with the Zionists in 1970 would cause civil war at the very least.

I'm inclined to disagree to be honest. If Nasser used imperialism as a new proxy for folks to rally against, and if Israel embraced its Palestinian population rather than being focused on its position as a Jewish state, a lot of the reasons for the intense animosity would be reduced. The modern relation between the countries is also not a great benchmark imo, because there is a lot more history and encouraged distrust that has built up over time.

[Union Princes]

Hey OP, when will my oil investments in the dominions pay off?

[Dahyan]

:!:

You do realise that the reactionary monarchies were/are actually the ones logically willing to negotiate with Israel, whereas the Socialist-leaning republics are not, right?

Even in contemporary Egypt, studies have shown around 90% of Egyptians want nothing to do with Israel and oppose the governments rapprochement with the Zionists. And that is after 40 years of official Egyptian-Israeli relations.

Going full-on 180° as Nasser and signing peace with the Zionists in 1970 would cause civil war at the very least.

I'm inclined to disagree to be honest. If Nasser used imperialism as a new proxy for folks to rally against, and if Israel embraced its Palestinian population rather than being focused on its position as a Jewish state, a lot of the reasons for the intense animosity would be reduced. The modern relation between the countries is also not a great benchmark imo, because there is a lot more history and encouraged distrust that has built up over time.

The hostility of Arab states towards Israel does not so much have its root in the treatment of Palestinians by the Zionist state, as it does in the rejection of the very concept of Israel as a state. From the perspective of most Arabs, and broader speaking the Islamic community, Israel is by its very definition a colonial entity illegally occupying Arab land. Treating Palestinians better than in OTL won't change that.

[Dahyan]

In regards to Libya, remember that Gadhaffi and the Libyan Arab Republic are considered a close ally to the Soviet Union. While we don't mind potential merging of Libya into the UAR, the Soviets will definitely respond to any aggression towards Libya, no matter by whom.

[Bentus]

-snip-
The hostility of Arab states towards Israel does not so much have its root in the treatment of Palestinians by the Zionist state, as it does in the rejection of the very concept of Israel as a state. From the perspective of most Arabs, and broader speaking the Islamic community, Israel is by its very definition a colonial entity illegally occupying Arab land. Treating Palestinians better than in OTL won't change that.

I admit that I'm not too sure about the historical precedent, and I do know that there is a fair bit of opposition for Israel's existence as a specifically Jewish state (rather than as a secular state) in contemporary times, but I don't think that animosity between Arabs and Israelis would be as deep-rooted as you imply. If we consider contemporary opinions (mostly since I can't find historical polls or surveys too easily), it's easy to see that geopolitics and realpolitik are driving the actions and decisions of Arab states far more than some over-riding hatred for Israel. This is even moreso the case for people living within Arab countries, who tend to be far more focused on local economic and social conditions than foreign affairs - unless something causes tensions to flare up more than normal. I wonder what the prevalence of animosity and competition between Sunni and Shia states was back in the 70s as well. This is another point that makes me question whether Arab-Israeli animosity would be so all-encompassing that even some barebones peace deal would lead to all-out civil war. Today, the Iran-Saudi divide seems to the primary axis that the Middle East has aligned itself toward, rather than an Israeli-Arab competition. If Arab states and people opposed Israel at a foundational level ("the rejection of the very concept of Israel as a state") then I don't think that we'd see Arab states today working with Israel (in many cases with fairly decent popular support) against Iran.

[Kenobot]

:!:

I'm inclined to disagree to be honest. If Nasser used imperialism as a new proxy for folks to rally against, and if Israel embraced its Palestinian population rather than being focused on its position as a Jewish state, a lot of the reasons for the intense animosity would be reduced. The modern relation between the countries is also not a great benchmark imo, because there is a lot more history and encouraged distrust that has built up over time.

The hostility of Arab states towards Israel does not so much have its root in the treatment of Palestinians by the Zionist state, as it does in the rejection of the very concept of Israel as a state. From the perspective of most Arabs, and broader speaking the Islamic community, Israel is by its very definition a colonial entity illegally occupying Arab land. Treating Palestinians better than in OTL won't change that.

Except it would by virtue of them being an at least partly Arab state whose citizens have the opportunity of being leaders of Israel. Israel is now no longer just the home of the Jews and so it's not "an illegal colonial entity".

In regards to Libya, remember that Gadhaffi and the Libyan Arab Republic are considered a close ally to the Soviet Union. While we don't mind potential merging of Libya into the UAR, the Soviets will definitely respond to any aggression towards Libya, no matter by whom.

Um yeah no they weren't and no we aren't. We aren't in the Warsaw Pact and we won't act at the Soviet Union's whim, if you think otherwise we'll let the other anti-Imperialist superpower set up shop.

-snip-
The hostility of Arab states towards Israel does not so much have its root in the treatment of Palestinians by the Zionist state, as it does in the rejection of the very concept of Israel as a state. From the perspective of most Arabs, and broader speaking the Islamic community, Israel is by its very definition a colonial entity illegally occupying Arab land. Treating Palestinians better than in OTL won't change that.

I admit that I'm not too sure about the historical precedent, and I do know that there is a fair bit of opposition for Israel's existence as a specifically Jewish state (rather than as a secular state) in contemporary times, but I don't think that animosity between Arabs and Israelis would be as deep-rooted as you imply. If we consider contemporary opinions (mostly since I can't find historical polls or surveys too easily), it's easy to see that geopolitics and realpolitik are driving the actions and decisions of Arab states far more than some over-riding hatred for Israel. This is even moreso the case for people living within Arab countries, who tend to be far more focused on local economic and social conditions than foreign affairs - unless something causes tensions to flare up more than normal. I wonder what the prevalence of animosity and competition between Sunni and Shia states was back in the 70s as well. This is another point that makes me question whether Arab-Israeli animosity would be so all-encompassing that even some barebones peace deal would lead to all-out civil war. Today, the Iran-Saudi divide seems to the primary axis that the Middle East has aligned itself toward, rather than an Israeli-Arab competition. If Arab states and people opposed Israel at a foundational level ("the rejection of the very concept of Israel as a state") then I don't think that we'd see Arab states today working with Israel (in many cases with fairly decent popular support) against Iran.

imo, for the monarchical leaders of the Middle East, it was for religious reasons and for the Nasserists it was the Pan-Arabism. Only in one circumstance can you be a bit more pragmatic and achieve peace. While Israel will almost certainly never joined the UAR, with their inclusion of Palestinians and no longer being explicitly a purely zionist state, any future regional organisations would certainly include them. There isn't an ancient deeply rooted anti-Zionism in the UAR; Israel itself had only existed for the past 22 years at this point and so it's not unimaginable that the population at large would accept this pragmatic view. Hell if we created an EEC/EU-type thingy with our own Shengen area it would actually help relations; not that that will necessarily happen

Idk how the Bizerte crisis makes things complicated for Tunisia given the French did end up handing the base back?

Yes, the French did hand the base back, after fighting off the Tunisians and inflicting civilian as well as military casualties (and as if to add to the insult, the base was handed back a three years after the fact in 1964). The crisis also mared Franco-Tunisian relations well into the 1970s and in general caused there to be an uptick in anti-Western sentiment in Tunisia.

However, by the late 1960s there have been more free-market reforms that hav been implemented by the Tunisian government. These reforms are above all designed to quell some of the populace's growing hatred of Bourguiba. Tunisia being on France's doorstep and all is also watched like a hawk by France. It's very possible that if France grows tired of Bourguiba they could just depose him, and that might very well happen if Bourguiba crosses some lines.

Ok but if you "Just could depose Bourguiba", could I not "just depose" Gadaffi? Not actually suggesting that I would, but I think that it's rather simplistic to say that at a whim you could overthrow him.
If you're going to deliberately be my counter in the ME, then so be it, but I'd seriously question your priorities given the literal rogue state in West Germany and y'know you being their mortal enemy France.

[Monsone]

Hey OP, when will my oil investments in the dominions pay off?

Depends when you started investing. Canada has already mostly paid off even if it isn't a huge oil producer yet. The big boom is going to be off-shore oil in the 1970s; and the IF has plenty of off-shore oil sites.

[Dahyan]

Um yeah no they weren't and no we aren't. We aren't in the Warsaw Pact and we won't act at the Soviet Union's whim, if you think otherwise we'll let the other anti-Imperialist superpower set up shop.

They were. You could literally find that in a five minute internet search. Also, how exactly is the Soviets not liking their allies being invaded equivalent to you "acting at the Soviet's whim"? It's basic politics: invade a country, and you'll piss off that country's allies.

And good luck finding another "anti-imperialist superpower". The US at this point was already the world's foremost imperialist power, and was recognised as such by the Nasserist and pan-Arab movement. You're flip-flopping all over the place. Honestly, the GDR wanting to join the EEC made more sense than the UAR and Nasser in this IC.

[Monsone]

Um yeah no they weren't and no we aren't. We aren't in the Warsaw Pact and we won't act at the Soviet Union's whim, if you think otherwise we'll let the other anti-Imperialist superpower set up shop.

They were. You could literally find that in a five minute internet search. Also, how exactly is the Soviets not liking their allies being invaded equivalent to you "acting at the Soviet's whim"? It's basic politics: invade a country, and you'll piss off that country's allies.

And good luck finding another "anti-imperialist superpower". The US at this point was already the world's foremost imperialist power, and was recognised as such by the Nasserist and pan-Arab movement. You're flip-flopping all over the place. Honestly, the GDR wanting to join the EEC made more sense than the UAR and Nasser in this IC.

The UAR and Libya where never Warsaw Pact members. They weren't even COMECON members or even observers. Egypt and the UAR was a founding member of the non-aligned movement. While the UAR was more pro-Soviet than pro-Western, it still was fundamentally non-aligned. Libya was also a member of the non-aligned movement despite being very pro-Soviet.

In fact, most communist/socialist countries where members of the non-aligned movement. Yugoslavia, Angola, Mozambique, Cuba, Afghanistan, North Korea, and South Yemen to name a few. The exception to the rule where the Warsaw Pact countries, Albania, and China as well as the USSR.

[Dahyan]

They were. You could literally find that in a five minute internet search. Also, how exactly is the Soviets not liking their allies being invaded equivalent to you "acting at the Soviet's whim"? It's basic politics: invade a country, and you'll piss off that country's allies.

And good luck finding another "anti-imperialist superpower". The US at this point was already the world's foremost imperialist power, and was recognised as such by the Nasserist and pan-Arab movement. You're flip-flopping all over the place. Honestly, the GDR wanting to join the EEC made more sense than the UAR and Nasser in this IC.

The UAR and Libya where never Warsaw Pact members. They weren't even COMECON members or even observers. Egypt and the UAR was a founding member of the non-aligned movement. While the UAR was more pro-Soviet than pro-Western, it still was fundamentally non-aligned. Libya was also a member of the non-aligned movement despite being very pro-Soviet.

In fact, most communist/socialist countries where members of the non-aligned movement. Yugoslavia, Angola, Mozambique, Cuba, Afghanistan, North Korea, and South Yemen to name a few. The exception to the rule where the Warsaw Pact countries, Albania, and China as well as the USSR.

Good thing I never claimed that any of those nations were Warsaw Pact members.

[Greater Liverpool]

Looking over the whole argument I will say this. The USSR can guarantee the independence of Libya and use potential force to back it up with, now why because the UAR is a second rate power and like most world powers that like to make sure the second rate ones do not get powerful that they can potentially act on there own. This is what the USSR is doing pretty making sure the UAR doesn't get too powerful in the region which is very rich in natural resources. I would encourage you to try and seek annexation of Libya diplomatically with the USSR but that doesn't bring into fact that the US or western nation trying to protect Libya to stop you for the exact same reason the soviets would.

[Dahyan]

The USSR itself won't respond much to a potential collaboration between the UAR and Israel. My comments about that in this thread are strictly OOC and from my own personal experience as a student of Arab and Islamic politics and history.

On the topic of Libya, that is another matter. The USSR will definitely respond to any aggression, although if OP were to decide that Libya would still agree to membership of the UAR peacefully, Moscow will have no problems with it.

[Mathuvan Union]

The USSR itself won't respond much to a potential collaboration between the UAR and Israel. My comments about that in this thread are strictly OOC and from my own personal experience as a student of Arab and Islamic politics and history.

On the topic of Libya, that is another matter. The USSR will definitely respond to any aggression, although if OP were to decide that Libya would still agree to membership of the UAR peacefully, Moscow will have no problems with it.

Why would you intervene, though?
It’s not like Libya is key to soviet livelihood

[Union Princes]

Why would you intervene, though?
It’s not like Libya is key to soviet livelihood

It's called Cold War Realpolitik, Mathuvan.

[Mathuvan Union]

Why would you intervene, though?
It’s not like Libya is key to soviet livelihood

It's called Cold War Realpolitik, Mathuvan.

It’s not really Realpolitik because it’s not really good for the Soviets if you think about it.
No need to be so condescending.

[Monsone]

It's called Cold War Realpolitik, Mathuvan.

It’s not really Realpolitik because it’s not really good for the Soviets if you think about it.

Libya would allow Soviet troops and planes to border the soft southern underbelies of nations like France, the Imperial Federation, and Italy. It would give the USSR a straight shot the the Straits of Gibraltar and be ability to cut off the Mediterranean. This is all in case of WW3.

I'd say Libya is pretty beneficial strategically to the Soviets.

[Mathuvan Union]

It’s not really Realpolitik because it’s not really good for the Soviets if you think about it.

Libya would allow Soviet troops and planes to border the soft southern underbelies of nations like France, the Imperial Federation, and Italy. It would give the USSR a straight shot the the Straits of Gibraltar and be ability to cut off the Mediterranean. This is all in case of WW3.

I'd say Libya is pretty beneficial strategically to the Soviets.

I would have found Algeria or Morocco more beneficial.

[Dahyan]

Libya would allow Soviet troops and planes to border the soft southern underbelies of nations like France, the Imperial Federation, and Italy. It would give the USSR a straight shot the the Straits of Gibraltar and be ability to cut off the Mediterranean. This is all in case of WW3.

I'd say Libya is pretty beneficial strategically to the Soviets.

I would have found Algeria or Morocco more beneficial.

Dude. Algeria is still French in this RP, and Morocco has always been a pro-Western kingdom. Libya under Gadhaffi, on the other hand, has had a close relationship with the USSR ever since the 1969 revolution.

[Mathuvan Union]

I would have found Algeria or Morocco more beneficial.

Dude. Algeria is still French in this RP, and Morocco has always been a pro-Western kingdom. Libya under Gadhaffi, on the other hand, has had a close relationship with the USSR ever since the 1969 revolution.

Yeah, immediacy after posting that I was like damnit I forgot it was French...