Soviet Israel and Washingtonian UAR, where do monarchs go?

[Kibbutznik]

In a situation where a socialist (not full communist) Israel accepts ties with a somewhat less antisemitic USSR (Molotov maintains good standing with Stalin, then Stalin is succeeded by some reformist Malenkov-Molotov-Zhukov troika, with Mikoyan, Bulganin, and Kosygin biding their time) and the United States backs a Cairo-lead UAR (A two-term Dewey presidency from 1948 leads to no CIA coup in Iran, which sets a precedent for the United States not supporting British-aligned Arab states), where do the other Arab monarchies go?


One would assume that Jordan would remain pro-British, whilst Iraq is somewhat a mess, with either a pro-British monarchy surviving, or a revolution occurring, the results of which are honestly unpredictable.
Saudi Arabia is the only that I honestly don't know about. It would probably switch to Britain, seeing as how the America-supported Nasserists are a direct threat to their regime.

 

[Minchandre]

In 1949, Saudi Arabia was basically owned by a consortium of American oil companies through the mechanism of Aramco (ARabian-AMerican oil COmpay). While the al-Saud family was able to wrench power away over the years in a slow and painful process ending in 1980, it'll be fairly difficult for them to align to anyone but the US until the 60s at least.

Also, of course, a Soviet-leaning Israel and US-leaning Egypt almost certainly butterfly the UAR.

You're right, though, that Jordan is almost certainly British leaning short of anything but a popular Palestinian revolt, and Iraq is likely to remain pro-British if monarchist (though not necessarily - unlike his little brother, Faisal was kinda pissed at the British for welshing on their promises to him). Any force that topples the Iraqi monarchy is likely to be Soviet-leaning, as the US won't want to piss on their friends' garden, but the CIA has hijacked popular revolts before.

Also, you didn't mention it, but the little Gulf monarchies are mostly more-or-less British vassals through the early 70s OTL. That seems unlikely to change.

 

[starman]

Saudi Arabia......would probably switch to Britain, seeing as how the America-supported Nasserists are a direct threat to their regime.

The US wouldn't support Nasserist attempts to subvert or attack Saudi Arabia. Washington opposed Nasser's adventure in Yemen.

 

[Kibbutznik]

The US wouldn't support Nasserist attempts to subvert or attack Saudi Arabia. Washington opposed Nasser's adventure in Yemen.

America would support Nasser to appear as a pro-Arab, anti-imperialist power and to counterbalance the Soviet-backed Israelis.

 

[Kibbutznik]

In 1949, Saudi Arabia was basically owned by a consortium of American oil companies through the mechanism of Aramco (ARabian-AMerican oil COmpay). While the al-Saud family was able to wrench power away over the years in a slow and painful process ending in 1980, it'll be fairly difficult for them to align to anyone but the US until the 60s at least.

Also, of course, a Soviet-leaning Israel and US-leaning Egypt almost certainly butterfly the UAR.

You're right, though, that Jordan is almost certainly British leaning short of anything but a popular Palestinian revolt, and Iraq is likely to remain pro-British if monarchist (though not necessarily - unlike his little brother, Faisal was kinda pissed at the British for welshing on their promises to him). Any force that topples the Iraqi monarchy is likely to be Soviet-leaning, as the US won't want to piss on their friends' garden, but the CIA has hijacked popular revolts before.

Also, you didn't mention it, but the little Gulf monarchies are mostly more-or-less British vassals through the early 70s OTL. That seems unlikely to change.

Why would U.S. support prevent a UAR? Wouldn't they act on the contrary, with Arab nationalism acting a bulwark against Israel?

 

[Minchandre]

Why would U.S. support prevent a UAR? Wouldn't they act on the contrary, with Arab nationalism acting a bulwark against Israel?

The better question is why the UAR would even happen in the first place? The union of Syria and Egypt was far from certain (and, as we can see from its short lifespan, quite fragile). First of all, what if Egypt is US backed but Syria is not? What if Egypt and Syria have different leaders than OTL who don't feel the need to try and merge their countries? Arab socialism was very pan-Arabist. What if the nationalist hardliners that the US supports are Egyptian and Syrian and Iraqi etc. nationalists and not pan-Arab nationalists? There are a lot of aspects of history that seem "inevitable". The short-lived political union of two not particularly close states isn't one of them.

 

[starman]

America would support Nasser to appear as a pro-Arab, anti-imperialist power and to counterbalance the Soviet-backed Israelis.

Sure but that didn't mean it had to support all of Nasser's policies. The West needed oil from Saudi Arabia, and the status quo there was good enough.

 

[mike of mass]

So very many butterflies. is Egypt pro USA from the beginning of the coup against Farouk? If so the Egyptian- British tension is probably averted. no Suez crisis. no overthrow the Iraqi Hashemites. the Yemen civil war ends with a royalist victory.
if USA is Nasser's backer things become tricky. nasser had ambitions to be more than a client state. so the Iraqi kingdom is probably subverted to prevent Egypt from becoming the lesser partner in the northern tier (OTL Iraq, turkey & Iran). the UAR is probably born but still dies of it's own internal contradictions.Egypt probably ends up like Chile with Nasser and Sadat playing the role of Pinochet. if the US is keeping a tight leash on it's Egyptian client,the six day war in 1967 is unlikely to occur. PLO is unlikely to be created by the Arab league in 1964.