What if the Arabs were more successful in the Yom Kippur war?

[Wr1t3r]

Pod#1 The war of attrition (1970) doesn't happen, meaning the Egyptian army has even more of a numbers advantage than the Israeli army than in OTL (the Egyptians suffered 20x more casualties than the IDF did in it)
PoD#2 Black september fails, and the PLO takes over Jordan, making Jordan side with Syria & Egypt
PoD#3 Iraq decides to be a full blown faction in this war, rather than just sending support to Syria. In Exchange Syria has to take Iraq's side in whatever it's next war would be in TTL

Would the arabs take back the Golan heights? Any of Palestine? With the PLO ruling Jordan, does this mean that they never go to lebanon and there's no Lebanese civil war?

 

[starman]

Pod#1 The war of attrition (1970) doesn't happen, meaning the Egyptian army has even more of a numbers advantage than the Israeli army than in OTL (the Egyptians suffered 20x more casualties than the IDF did in it)

A potential problem is, without the war of attrition, Egypt wouldn't have gained the experience needed for the AD it had by '73 in OTL. It might've continued to
rely on fighters i.e. assumed its MIGs were largely adequate for air cover as long as they weren't been wiped out on the ground.
Overall, though, Egypt would've probably fared better without the war of attrition.

PoD#2 Black september fails, and the PLO takes over Jordan, making Jordan side with Syria & Egypt

It would've been tough if not impossible for the PLO to take over Jordan without Syrian help but israel would've intervened had the Syrians totally beaten Hussein's armed forces.

Iraq decides to be a full blown faction in this war, rather than just sending support to Syria.

Probably not possible inasmuch as Iraq had Kurds and iranians to deal with or watch.

Could the arabs take back the Golan heights? Any of Palestine? With the PLO ruling Jordan, does this mean that they never go to lebanon and there's no Lebanese civil war?

I think the war could've gone considerably different from OTL. It's possible that a more hostile Jordan would force Israel to keep its Sherman-equipped battalion, or perhaps even its 7th armored brigade, facing a bigger, soviet equipped PLO, in which case Syria could probably have retaken Golan. Sure who needs lebanon if they can have jordan?

 

[Ahab]

As Starman said, without the Attrition War, Egypt might not have the experience and confidence to fight Israel as successfully as in 1973. Egypt had arguably won the Attrition war, so I don't see how avoiding it would help them. It's not like the lacked in men or material. Egypt might try to fight just like in previous wars, and would be defeated.

If the PLO somehow won in Jordan then it is much less likely that Israel would be caught by surprise, as Jordan is now actively hostile.

Regarding Iraq, did they even have sufficient capabilities to move significant forces to make such a difference?

 

[starman]

If the PLO somehow won in Jordan then it is much less likely that Israel would be caught by surprise, as Jordan is now actively hostile.

Egypt and Syria essentially attained surprise despite their longstanding hostility. If Jordan maintains a public facade of quiescence, like Egypt and Syria did prior to the 6th, it would've had a reasonable chance of making initial gains (although Syria was likely to be the main beneficiary).

Regarding Iraq, did they even have sufficient capabilities to move significant forces to make such a difference?

Sure, they did this in OTL. Three Iraqi divisions went to Syria. They didn't begin arriving until the 12th and weren't very tactically proficient, but they did help Syria at a critical time by diverting Israeli forces away from Damascus and toward them.

 

[boredviewer1234]

Would say Syria reclaiming a large part of the Golan is possible, but don't think it would match the exact borders as fighting tends never be that clear cut think Syria can come ahead this round.

By that the Golan besides it's great defensive terrain used to be of Syria's richest provinces, rebuilding it will be a long and costly process, specially given the value of water I think Syria would need to fight hard to keep. Not saying it's pointless but think a victory where say Syria struggles and is willing to re-examine what went wrong and were they need to improve is just as vital to keeping it as say funding from other states to help rebuild it afterword's.

Would the arabs take back the Golan heights? Any of Palestine? With the PLO ruling Jordan, does this mean that they never go to lebanon and there's no Lebanese civil war?

The PLO was a big tent party of....a wide variety groups? It's difficult to explain but the PLO in Lebanon was already well established long before many groups were expelled from Jordan and while the PLO definitely helped start the Lebanese civil war it had decades of build up. Many of the PLO groups were controlled by Syria would go harass and launch raids into Israel who in turn would bomb the general population hoping to turn them against them.

With a Jordan ruled by a PLO that's very allied to Syria, hoping to keep their gains from 1973 you might see a cautious détente in Lebanon as in Syria order's its Palestinian controlled factions to stop in hopes of proving themselves a rational actor to Israel to get a treaty and Lebanese hoping the the refuge camps will come down. Note this will be a slow process, Jordan was in general for a long time before the Israeli invasion of Lebanon as more risky. The PLO taking over Jordan I think would have Palestinians in Lebanon be both a bit elated but also very worried about a potential Israeli invasion and not be willing to cross the border just yet afraid of being expelled once more.

That said, think a lot of Palestinians would be willing to move out of Lebanon sooner or later given the discrimination but think Lebanon might be soon having a crises soon between the many tensions in the nation boiling over, a Syria that's regained the Golan might be satisfied for now but think they would making sure the PLO in Jordan don't have full control over the camps might help contribute.

Overall would say the scenario is better than 1973 for the various Arab nations and people overall but they must do their best to maintain it and Lebanon is still quite fragile.

 

[Dave Howery]

They didn't begin arriving until the 12th and weren't very tactically proficient, but they did help Syria at a critical time by diverting Israeli forces away from Damascus and toward them.

did the Israelis actually plan on driving on Damascus? IIRC, they debated it, but decided it would be beyond their capacity to capture and hold. And 'not tactically proficient' is an understated way of putting it... the Iraqis wasted a big chunk of their armored force by basically driving blithely into a 'box' trap set by the Israelis, losing most of their tanks in that force in a matter of hours...
the Golan Heights is an issue for the Israelis... they took it in the first place because the Heights allowed the Syrians to put artillery fire onto the towns below. It's hard to imagine a scenario that lets the Israelis agree to Syria keeping them, short of utter defeat on the battlefield. Which actually isn't that much of a POD. IIRC, the Syrians came within a hair of breaking out of the Heights and putting forces down into Israel. Give the Egyptians over on the west front some better luck, and Israel might just have to agree to the peace terms....

 

[Ahab]

did the Israelis actually plan on driving on Damascus? IIRC, they debated it, but decided it would be beyond their capacity to capture and hold. And 'not tactically proficient' is an understated way of putting it... the Iraqis wasted a big chunk of their armored force by basically driving blithely into a 'box' trap set by the Israelis, losing most of their tanks in that force in a matter of hours...
the Golan Heights is an issue for the Israelis... they took it in the first place because the Heights allowed the Syrians to put artillery fire onto the towns below. It's hard to imagine a scenario that lets the Israelis agree to Syria keeping them, short of utter defeat on the battlefield. Which actually isn't that much of a POD. IIRC, the Syrians came within a hair of breaking out of the Heights and putting forces down into Israel. Give the Egyptians over on the west front some better luck, and Israel might just have to agree to the peace terms....

Israel would sooner withdraw from the entire Sinai then give up the Golan.
The Egyptians couldn't actually take the entire thing in time, so it would give Israel enough time to reinforce the Golan front, as a priority for almost any other front.

 

[Belisarius II]

As Starman said, without the Attrition War, Egypt might not have the experience and confidence to fight Israel as successfully as in 1973. Egypt had arguably won the Attrition war, so I don't see how avoiding it would help them. It's not like the lacked in men or material. Egypt might try to fight just like in previous wars, and would be defeated.

If the PLO somehow won in Jordan then it is much less likely that Israel would be caught by surprise, as Jordan is now actively hostile.

Regarding Iraq, did they even have sufficient capabilities to move significant forces to make such a difference?

By what measure do you think Egypt won the War of Attrition?

 

[starman]

did the Israelis actually plan on driving on Damascus? IIRC, they debated it, but decided it would be beyond their capacity to capture and hold.

On the 6th, even before the war started, Elazar proposed reaching Damascus in a counterattack but Dayan rejected that, just as he had rejected suggestions to advance further in '67 and take Cairo, Amman and Damascus. "We don't need an arab city and a big arab population to hold down."
Still, Syria was in a dire situation by the 12th. The Israelis were beginning to outflank and overcome their defenses near Damascus, which would've left their capital all but defenseless even if it wasn't occupied. By diverting israeli attention elsewhere, the arrival of Iraqi armor prevented a Syrian collapse.

And 'not tactically proficient' is an understated way of putting it... the Iraqis wasted a big chunk of their armored force by basically driving blithely into a 'box' trap set by the Israelis, losing most of their tanks in that force in a matter of hours...

I know but this sacrifice wasn't for nothing. Shazli cited it in his critique of Sadat's decision to attack on the 14th. The costly Egyptian offensive wasn't really needed to save Syria. Iraqi intervention--however inept-- had already achieved that on the 12th.

It's hard to imagine a scenario that lets the Israelis agree to Syria keeping them, short of utter defeat on the battlefield.

I suppose the israeli attitude could've changed if Assad went to Jerusalem like Sadat in '77 but politically that would've been problematic at best.

IIRC, the Syrians came within a hair of breaking out of the Heights and putting forces down into Israel.

I doubt this. It is true that they could've taken all of Golan (had they avoided two prewar mistakes--the subject of one of my blogs) but going farther would've been suicidal. It would've been tough to provide air cover and logistical support. Like the Egyptians advancing south along the shore of the gulf of suez on October 9 (IIRC) the Syrians would've gone beyond their SAM umbrella.

Give the Egyptians over on the west front some better luck, and Israel might just have to agree to the peace terms....

The Egyptians didn't necessarily need better luck just better leadership. Sadat was an inept military leader. Had Shazli made the decisions, the outcome might've been much more favorable.

 

[Wr1t3r]

Jordan was in general for a long time before the Israeli invasion of Lebanon as more risky

What do you mean?

but think they would making sure the PLO in Jordan don't have full control over the camps might help contribute.

Contrinute to what?

 

[boredviewer1234]

What do you mean?

Contrinute to what?

Israeli raids and bombings in Jordan where seen as far more threatening for the PLO, Palestinian population and fighters, mainly because after the 1967 a large chunk of the Palestinian population in Jordan was very near the Israeli border so moving to Jordan to live/fight there would seen as more a risk compared to staying in Lebanon given the history of Israeli retaliation.


My bad meant it would contribute to the instability in Lebanon, Syria would very much to keep their elements of the PLO in Lebanon under their control a PLO state in Jordan would likewise seeking to more independence from their patron and gain control over all the Palestinian groups or at least try for as many as they could would likely fuel the tensions already present in the nation.

 

[Wr1t3r]

Egypt had arguably won the Attrition war

how?

 

[Monk78]

Can Arabs esp Egypt form a much stronger navy and conduct a lot more shore bombardment operations?
Maybe a few ww2 cruisers can come in handy ?

 

[starman]

Can Arabs esp Egypt form a much stronger navy and conduct a lot more shore bombardment operations?
Maybe a few ww2 cruisers can come in handy ?

Two problems: First limited resources and a need to prioritize antitank and antiaircraft weapons, combat engineers (on both fronts) etc. Second, Israeli air superiority would've probably sent arab ships to the bottom even if Gabriel missiles didn't.