• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Good news, everyone. The much-talked-about Middle East update has finally arrived. The Middle East is very much a complicated place, and trying to put an alternate history spin on it is also complicated. I really appreciate the feedback you all have been giving me here and elsewhere.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sparkman’s Trip
In the summer of 1953, Stevenson turned his attention to an area of foreign policy that he considered to be “a minefield”: the Middle East. The “minefield” label was certainly appropriate. Ever since the end of World War Two, the region had been anything but peaceful. Violent outbreaks between the Arab population and Jewish settlers had forced the British to withdraw from Palestine and hand the problem over to the United Nations. The United Nation’s decision to partition Palestine into side-by-side Arab and Jewish states further undermined security in the region. When Israel came into existence on February 14th, 1950, the Dewey Administration stepped in and helped safeguard her independence from her hostile Arab neighbors. This in turn fueled anti-American anger among the Arab states. Three years after Israel’s birth, Stevenson thought the time had come to re-evaluate the Middle East and see if he could chart a new course away from Dewey’s Israel-only policy. As with Vietnam, the President wanted to have a fact-finding mission to the region before making any decisions. He chose to assign the mission to his Vice President (who was anxious to have some sort of role within the Administration and therefore gladly agreed to make this trip).
39135c97adbb08ff_landing-1.jpg

It must have been quite a culture shock for the people of the Middle East when Sparkman arrived in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia on June 24th. Stepping off the plane, the Vice President greeted the United States Ambassador there and the Arabian crowd with his Deep South voice. For many people, this was the first time they had ever heard this uniquely American accent. Visiting the largest Arab country for the first time, Sparkman learned real quickly that the nation was built on one essential resource: oil. “This place is basically one giant gas station,” he quipped during his visit. The Vice President also learned who ran the country: the royal House of Saud. Upon meeting King Abdul Aziz al Saud, Sparkman was struck by how old-looking but impressive he was. The two men discussed at length politics. The King expressed his dislike that the United States was supporting Israel – something Sparkman would hear more than once during the tour. However, Israel was minor compared to a more pressing problem: the British. None of the Saudis were happy with British interference in the region and wanted America to exert her influence in forcing them out. Sparkman said he couldn’t promise anything without consulting the President first. “The United States,” the King reminded his guest, “Opposed imperialism in the past and helped win independence for our neighbors. We appreciate your help in preventing the French from re-occupying Syria and Lebanon during the war. By once again standing against the remnants of imperialism, the United States will do much to redeem herself in the hearts of Arabians everywhere.”
ibn-saud-3-large-1.jpg

After being given a vast oriental rug as a parting gift, the Vice President next traveled to Cairo, Egypt. Unlike the Saudis, the Egyptians pulled out all the stops in welcoming the American visitor to their country. They wanted to make a grand first impression – and it worked. As Sparkman would report later, the Egyptians “went above and beyond in being gracious hosts.”
This warm welcome was all carefully choreographed, of course. The Egyptian Government, headed by Colonel Muhammad Naguib, was perhaps the least corrupt, most forward-looking of the Arabian states and saw the United States as a friend and not a foe. Yes, Egypt opposed Israel and tried to wipe her off the map in the 1950 Arab-Israeli War…but that was all before Naguib came to power. The Egyptian President believed his country should look past Israel and build a strong relationship with the United States.
225px-Muhammad_Naguib.jpg

One of the factors driving the Egyptian good attitude towards the Americans was the desire for their aid in a construction project that was on the drawing board at the time. To increase economic production by regulating the annual flooding of the Nile River and providing storage of water for agriculture, the Egyptians wanted to build a second dam in Aswan (the first dam had been constructed at the turn of the 20th Century). The “High Dam” was planned to be 3,830 meters long and 111 meters high and would increase Egypt’s arable acreage by about one-third. The Vice President told Naguib that “I see my nation’s support for the development of your dam as quite possible.”
Encouraged by the prospect of American financing of the High Dam project, Naguib asked for US support on something else: ending British control of the Suez Canal. Opened in 1869, the Suez Canal is an artificial sea-level waterway connecting the Mediterranean Sea with the Red Sea. It allows for easy transport between Europe and Asia without having to go all the way around Africa. Regarding the Suez Canal to be a matter of sovereignty, Naguib requested that America exert pressure on the British to withdraw and hand the canal over to them. As in Saudi Arabia, the former Alabamian Senator dodged the request by stating that he was in no position to say “Yes” or “No” on the matter:
“Construction projects are one thing. Foreign policy is something else.”
Content with the prospect of obtaining funding for the dam, the modest and soft-spoken Naguib dropped the Suez Canal issue – for the moment, anyway.
4adfdf1477666c8c_landing-1.jpg

After sightseeing the ancient Pyramids, Sparkman left Egypt. His feeling at the time of departure was that the country could develop into a strong ally of America. However, he couldn’t completely push the Suez Canal issue aside. The British were deeply rooted in Suez and it seemed unlikely that the Eden Government would just abandon it. Sparkman knew that at some point, the United States would have to either side with Egypt or with the United Kingdom. In any event, this would be down the road. In the meantime, the Vice President’s next stop would be Beirut, Lebanon. The Lebanese reception was cold, with no warmth at all. Of all the Middle Eastern countries, Lebanon detested the United States the most…and the Vice President felt this throughout his stay. Anti-Israeli emotion on the streets ran very high, which spilled over into anti-American anger. At one point while in Beirut, Sparkman found himself dodging an egg thrown at him by a protestor. In his meeting with President Camille Chamoun, Sparkman was told point-blankly that nothing less than full American withdrawal of support for Israel would improve diplomatic relations between their two nations.
c16da8511ac3e8be_landing-1.jpg

Getting nowhere in Lebanon, Sparkman and his entourage quickly went overland across the border to Damascus, Syria. Here, the Syrians were somewhat better than the Lebanese. Unlike Lebanon, Syria didn’t believe in “throwing Israel into the sea.”
The Syrians accepted that the Israelis were here to stay. What they wanted from America was help in dealing with repatriating the Arab refugees, fixing boundaries, and pushing the United Nations to internationalize Jerusalem. After agreeing to discuss the matter with the President, Sparkman flew to Amman, Jordan – where he posed for a photo-op with His Majesty Hussein I.
767d1e85164cc0d0_landing-1.jpg

The Vice President concluded his Middle East tour in Israel. In their meeting, Prime Minister David Ben Gurion laid out his nation’s goals:
-Fulfilling her humanitarian mission of providing shelter and sanctuary for her homeless Jewish refugees
-Rebuilding the desert land of Israel
-Pursuing economic development based on Hebrew ethics and modern technology
“It can be done because it has to be done,” Gurion declared, “Our survival as Jewish people depend on it.”
Sparkman reassured Gurion that the United States would continue assisting Israel; at the same time, he warned that the Administration was considering changes in Middle East foreign policy:
“We would like the focus to be less about Israel and more about the region as a whole. We would like to encourage your country and the Arab States to settle your differences by direct negotiation.”
That's when the meeting turned tense. Somewhat offended, Gurion argued that Israel wanted to live in “friendly cooperation” with her Arab neighbors. However, the Arabs chose to make war against her. “Our aim is peace,” he said. For peace to succeed, the Arabs had to stop trying to fight the Jews. Sparkman acknowledged that Arabs had been hostile, but “that is no reason why the United States should not try to understand the Arab point of view.”
When Gurion was informed that the Administration would consider aiding Egypt to help them develop their economic resources and raise their living standards, he was not a happy camper. He felt that in doing so, the United States would be essentially abandoning Israel. “With all due respect,” he said, “The previous Administration understood very well the precarious situation that we are in. I am afraid your Administration doesn’t understand that you simply cannot let us wither on the vine in favor of dealing with people whose only goal is to kill us.”
552ce603b06a0203_landing-1.jpg

Sparkman left the meeting with a very low opinion of Gurion. He also felt that – like the ownership of the Suez Canal – the United States would have to make another tough choice: continue standing blindly behind Israel or reach out to the Arabs (with Egypt being the best bet). Leaving Israel, he made a brief layover in Cyprus before heading home to the United States. During his brief stay on the island, Sparkman could feel the heavy tension in the air. The ancient island was in the middle of a bitter territorial dispute between Greece and Turkey. After World War Two, the Attlee Government gave into the Greek Government’s demand to hand Cyprus over to them. Turkey – who also laid claim to the island – refused to recognize Greek sovereignty, arguing that Cyprus really belonged to them. As a result, Greece and Turkey were at odds with each other over the legal status of the island. Discussing the matter with the Cypriots, Sparkman could sense the nervousness among the people living on the island that this territorial dispute could spiral into all-out war if the two sides pushed things that far. Greek and Turkish Cypriots both wanted American support in their competing claims to the island. As the Vice President finally made his way home, there was no doubt that there would be a lot to talk about at the White House – along with tough decisions that would have to be made regarding the Middle East and Cyprus.
ScreenSave0-1.jpg
 
Last edited:
No Nasser in Egypt? That will change the scene in the Middle East quite a bit. Also means the non-aligned movement will miss one of its most vocal supporters. Nevertheless, I hope Sparkmans trip can lead to a happier history of the Middle East.

Also, no Makarios and no Nasser must mean Sir Anthony Eden is a much happier man :D.
 
Last edited:
Dunno why, but I have the feeling that Ben Gurion is asking for an "kick my ass, please!"-solution.
 
FlyingDutchie: No Nasser in Egypt yet. It really depends on what the game does. By the way, I think Paradox gave Nasser an hilarious minister pic.

As for Eden, not all is happy in the British Empire. I will talk about the colonial problems later, especially in Malaya.

Leviathan07: Yes, it will. In fact, I have an idea for later on if the US decides to back Turkey.

Kurt_Steiner: I based the meeting between Sparkman and Gurion on an actual meeting between Stevenson and Gurion. Reading about Gurion's point of view gave me the impression that he might be "exceptionally shortsighted" if the US considered helping the Arabs. The US might have to kick his ass, as you put it.
 
Well, I would back the Greeks myself...but I'm no U.S. President :D nevertheless, Ben Gurion has made a point there...I mean, the U.S. must make sure that if there is Arab-Israeli Cooperation, all nations must recognize Israel. The borders must be defined, and then all is right, with some rights to the minorities in Jerusalem then at least Egypt and Saudi-Arabia will agree, the strongest of the Arab nations. Saudi-Arabia is now also easily distracted by the imperial ambitions of Britain and neighbour Iraq...(if Iraq is that hostile...)
 
I have to agree that at this time, Israel is actually the main block to stability in the region. Egypt and Saudi Arabia can both be brought into the American fold: Egypt can be encouraged to work with Israel if they get Suez, and the Saudis will favour the US if the British presence/threat is reduced. Given the States' position of power and Britain's need for them as a reliable ally, I can't see how these couldn't be achieved.

IIRC Nasser offered compensation to Britain and France when he took over Suez, so maybe negotiation along those lines could work. Britain could be persuaded that if it withdraws a bit from the Middle East, then friendly Arab nations (made friendly by their withdrawal) could come in to manage the region. Over-extended as they are and with more commitments than ever before, Britain might welcome an opportunity to 'shorten the front' as it were.
 
The US Foreign Policy is greatly linked to their Economic Policy IRL. The Cyprus situation; the US might just be a spectator since either options would affect the trade ties between of either Greece or Turkey. Maybe a split of the island between the government's of Greece and Turkey could temperately solve some issues, though that does have a negative effect. In the Middle East, I most likely believe that the American's would support Egypt in gaining back the Suez since they would gain significant influence over Col. Naguib and his government which would led to the Saudi's.
 
Great update, although taking a tough love approach with Israel could have serious domestic consequences in splitting the Democrats at home.

The addition of Cyprus to the mix was brilliant. I tend to think of Cyprus as a European rather than a Middle East problem but it fits in neatly with the clashing expectations in this update. And it is a problem far more intractable than the Israel/Palestine problem because it involves 2 NATO members. Certainly Turkey is more strategic value in the basing of short range nuclear missiles near the USSR but Greece has very strong domestic support in the US. If both call for support from their allies, does the US bomb Athens and Istanbul at the same time in order to be even handed?
 
Timmie0307: I don't think Lebanon will recognize Israel no matter what the US does. Heck, the Vice President had an egg thrown at him by an Lebanese protestor.

Andreios II: I can tell you that Egypt probably won't get Suez and the British will probably still be meddling in the region. Once you have influence in the region, it's rather hard to let go.

soulking: America has way better relations with Turkey (+194) than with Greece (+6). Wouldn't it make sense to support the side you are closer to?

As for the Suez Canal, I don't see the British handing the canal over to Egypt for one simple reason: it's their main source of power projection in the Middle East. Without Suez, the British are reduced to owning Kuwait and Dubai (both in the Persian Gulf area). Thanks to Attlee, the British have lost Cyprus. I don't think Eden wants to lose Suez on his watch.

Davout: As an Republican, it's tempting to split the Democrats. Of course, the Republicans in 1953 are licking their wounds from the thumping they recieved in 1950 and 1952. On top of that, the titular leader of the G.O.P. - Robert Taft - is about to drop dead (although in the long run, it will probably be a good thing).

Thank you for the compliment. Personally, I am leaning towards US support of Turkey's claim on the grounds of the Turkish strategic advantage and the strong diplomatic relationship between the two countries. It would probably be a mistake, though. Then again, every President does make mistakes and this could be one of Stevenson's.
 
But who is more important, Israel or Lebanon, to be honest if American Foreign Policy is linked with their economic policy, they have to support Israel all the way, because they financed a lot there and it is bringing in some profits already, while Lebanon refuses outright any U.S. help. So would be the case of Saudi-Arabia and Egypt....
 
As for Middle East, I found Sparkman's visit very productive for relations between USA and Arab states. Israel seemed a bit too cold towards you, so you must be careful not to lose this ally, while Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia proved as very friendly towards USA. Colonel Naguib could be good ally if you will help with construction of Aswan dam. Maybe Egypt could even be a motor of Arab-Israeli negotiations. If you manage to force Brits to give Suez Canal to Egypt, you can even prevent the rise of Nasser.

As for other Arab states, Lebanon seems problematic. What about Iraq, is it still pro-British kingdom? It seems that Arab leaders admire anti-imperialist stance of US. This could help you a lot with expanding US influence, but it might also ruin the relations with UK. However, UK is probably still dependent on US economic aid, so we probably can't expect they will be isolating from your sphere.

As for Greece and Turkey, maybe Cyprus can become an independent state with both Turks and Greeks sharing the power? For the Middle East, you should probably aid the Arab states to preserve their friendship, while still protecting the Israel (asking neighbours to recognize it?).
 
But who is more important, Israel or Lebanon, to be honest if American Foreign Policy is linked with their economic policy, they have to support Israel all the way, because they financed a lot there and it is bringing in some profits already, while Lebanon refuses outright any U.S. help. So would be the case of Saudi-Arabia and Egypt....

The profit to be had from propping up Israel would not be of a financial nature, but rather of a political and religious nature. The Dem Party has many Jewish voters who want to see the Zionist project take roots, and tend to support the biblical claims over the claims of the native Arabs (regardless of whether those are Christians or Muslims.)

Strategically Israel is not very useful - they offer the US no military bases, they don't help in any way in the Cold War struggle, and they give the Soviets easy propaganda points with the Arab states. Even if they did offer military bases - none of them are further than 30 miles from a potentially hostile border, so putting troops there would mean putting them within missile range of any potential low-tech enemy.

Economically the country also has little to offer that the US could not get cheaper elsewhere. It's a small country with some fruit farms, light engineering and limitless need for financial support, that's basically it. (lack of infrastructure + lack of industrial capital + limitless military budget.) There is no huge US-Israeli trade to be had, unless for some reason the US suddenly prefers to import oranges and dates from overseas over those from Florida.

The same of course goes for Lebanon or Syria. Economic arguments aren't going to influence US mid east policy. (It's not like in China where regardless of politics, there's a gigantic market for US goods.)
 
soulking: America has way better relations with Turkey (+194) than with Greece (+6). Wouldn't it make sense to support the side you are closer to?

As for the Suez Canal, I don't see the British handing the canal over to Egypt for one simple reason: it's their main source of power projection in the Middle East. Without Suez, the British are reduced to owning Kuwait and Dubai (both in the Persian Gulf area). Thanks to Attlee, the British have lost Cyprus. I don't think Eden wants to lose Suez on his watch.

I agree with your reply. It is true that Turkey IG has better relations with the US than the Greeks. But, if the American Administration decided to favor one ally (Turkey) over another (Greece), wouldn't that send a negative image to the latter? Maybe enough so to accept some "influence" from the Eastern Bloc? The Soviets have interest in the Middle East, but I truly doubt that they would just restrict themselves there.

By splitting Cyprus into two parts - one to Greece and the other to Turkey, you would be able to continue relations with both countries - since both of them did get part of what they wanted.

As for your Middle East reply, I again agree that Eden would stubbornly hold onto the Suez since it is their last piece of "good" territory in the M.E. But, as long as they hold onto it, they would threaten the stability of the region - Egypt wants the Suez; they don't get it, they won't happily cooperate with the American which in turn would affect the US influence in the region. I predict that the Suez Canal would become a situation in the Middle East, but probably not for sometime - all the Egyptians could currently do is threaten its stability but with possible American investment into the High Dam project, I doubt they would try that.
 
Here is America's relationship with those countries via July 1953:
Iran: -29 (British Puppet) (Allied)
Iraq: +199 (Allied)
Saudi Arabia: -23 (Allied)
Oman: +174 (Allied)
Yemen: +194 (Allied)
Syria: +39
Lebanon: -86
Jordan: +13
Israel: +199
Egypt: +199

Timmie0307: Lebanon is the bottom of the barrel as far as the US is concerned.

Asalto: Just to test it out, I invited Egypt into the Allies camp...and they accepted it. When 1954 comes around, I am going to see if I can bring Egypt into the Allies camp for real.

I have written Lebanon off as a lost cause. Iraq is no longer a British puppet, but the British still have influence there.

To be honest, I am still not sure yet what to do about Cyprus.

Leviathan07: You make very good points about the economics of the Middle East.

soulking: Well, it would be problematic if Greece went Communist or whatnot. That would threathen pro-Allies Yugoslavia, who has the Eastern Bloc breathing down their neck.

The Cyprus option is one I will keep in mind.

At least I can kick the Suez question down the road.

Speaking of kicking stuff down the road...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrestling with the Middle East
The Vice President was out of the country for two weeks. After spending a day resting and putting his presentation together, he met with the President, the Secretary of State, and other key foreign policy personnel at the White House on July 10th. In the meeting, Sparkman presented his views on how the Middle East should be handled. “The first thing I learned in the region,” he began, “Is that the Arabs aren’t too keen on Israel. That being said, most of them have realized that the Israelis cannot be pushed into the sea and are willing to talk to them. If other issues can be addressed and resolved, I think we can reach accommodation in the Middle East.”
Sparkman also spoke of the annoyance the Arabs had towards the British:
“The general attitude is that the British have overstayed their welcome. All of the Arabs I talked to express the feeling that they [the British] are trying to maintain a foothold in the region in defiance of the majority who just want them to go away.”
Speaking of the British, Stevenson informed the Vice President that he was planning to visit the United Kingdom in the fall as part of his upcoming European tour. “I will certainly talk about the Middle East with the Prime Minister [Anthony Eden], but I feel I may not get far,” he admitted. Acheson agreed:
“For the British, influence is everything. This is especially true now, with their global power waning. London no longer leads the world and they know it. That is why the British will cling onto whatever influence they can exert.”
middle_east_45_plln-1.png

There was unanimous agreement among the men in the room that Egypt should be on the receiving end of American support. “If the price for a solid friendship is the construction of this dam,” the President decided, “We should roll up our sleeves and get to work on it.”
The “High Dam” project would therefore go forward with American backing. The Suez Canal issue, on the other hand, led to sharp disagreements between Sparkman and Acheson. The Vice President felt that America’s hand in the region would be greatly strengthened if the Egyptians were able to gain control of the canal. The Secretary of State expressed his strong disapproval over the idea:
“Pursuing this course would be a complete waste of time. There is no way the British are going to give up Suez. This is their only base of operations in the Eastern Mediterranean. Without Suez, the British will be forced back to their bases in the Persian Gulf. This will effectively disrupt their influence over the region. With their empire crumbling, the British would be mad to voluntarily walk away from a major base. If anything, I believe they will make their last stand here and fight bitterly for it.”
After listening to both arguments, Stevenson decided to postpone making any decision regarding the British until after his meeting with Eden:
“If the Prime Minister is resolute about staying in this region, then further talks might be fruitless.”
As for the other Middle Eastern nations:
-No effort would be made to improve relations with Lebanon. There was unanimous agreement among the men in the room that the Lebanese demand for full American withdrawal of support for Israel would be impossible to accept.
-Syria’s request that America help repatriate Arab refugees forced to flee their homes in the tumult of the last several years would be looked into…along with fixing boundaries. As for pushing the United Nations to internationalize Jerusalem, the Vice President cast his doubts about it:
“Jordan controls Jerusalem and she didn’t seem willing to give it up when I talked to His Majesty about it.”
9463b8829d42d157_landing-1.jpg

Sparkman strongly criticized the Israeli Prime Minister, calling him “stubborn” and “shortsighted” in not seeing the wisdom of negotiating with the Arabs. Both Egypt and Syria signaled they were willing to put up with Israel, and Jordan could be persuaded to follow along. Lebanon would be an exercise in futility; however, her neighbors might be able to pressure the Lebanese into tolerating the Jewish State to some degree. The big question mark would be Israel: would Gurion really sabotage America’s effort at encouraging peaceful cooperation between the Jews and the Arabs? The Vice President believed he would and suggested exerting pressure on the Israeli government to actually talk to her neighbors. Acheson was in complete agreement:
“Tel Aviv must get the message that the days of living in isolation and getting by purely on our aid are over.”
However, the President expressed his concerns about taking a tough-love approach to Israel. After all, the Jewish State had many friends within the United States. Stevenson was afraid that pressing Tel Aviv too hard would result in a negative reaction from both the pro-Israel lobby and the Jewish voting bloc. The out-of-power Republicans could exploit this reaction politically to make gains in next year’s midterm election. “We should reach out to the Arabs, of course, but I would prefer to handle Israel with kid gloves,” Stevenson cautioned.
President_Harry_Truman_and_Adlai_Stevenson-1.gif

The meeting concluded on the subject of Cyprus. The Secretary of State minced no words in expressing his support for Turkey:
“Mr. President, we have spent millions of dollars keeping Greece afloat. In my judgment, the Greeks have been ungrateful for our support. Turkey, on the other hand, has closely aligned itself to our interests as a result of our steadfast support. Furthermore, Turkey is far more strategically important than Greece. Stationing our ICBMs there allows us to strike the Soviet Union through her underbelly. With this in mind, I believe rewarding Turkish loyalty by helping them obtain control of Cyprus is the prudent course of action for us to take.”
As with the British, Stevenson said he would wait to make a decision regarding the Cypriots until later in the fall after he came back from Europe. Speaking of Europe, at about the same time the Americans were trying to chart a different course in the Middle East, the new French Prime Minister - Joseph Laniel - was trying to chart a different course in Vietnam.
8a2cab251d567ae3_landing-1.jpg
 
“The first thing I learned in the region,” he began, “Is that the Arabs aren’t too keen on Israel. ”

I love the cleverness of this statement. Never guessed so...:D

Sometimes I feel that the US were awfully arrogant when dealing with the Arabs, thinking that they, which were almost newcomers to the area, knew better than the Britons, which had spent some of a century fooling around there. Anyway, it's just changing a master for another one, no less. Enjoy it. Inch' Allah!
 
Last edited:
Think the carrot-and-the-stick approach proposed to Israel will benefit all in the long run. If you follow it consequently you might just have diffused the worlds greatest ticking timebomb.

As for Cyprus, the vast majority of its inhabitants are Greek. In reallife they waged a bloody insurgency against the British for their independence. They will more than likely do the same against the less able Turks (the British had vast experience dealing with insurgencies in Malaya, Kenya and Ulster). Add to this the British might just loose a few weapons caches from their Cypriot bases if forced to give up on Greece and the Middle East and you have one hell of a situation on your hand. If it comes down to a choice between Turkey and Britain/Greece, my strategic choice would be obvious.
 
So its not going to be a massive Eden-wank then? *tear*

Great series of updates on the Mid-East. Its tempting to say there is more than one or two sparks waiting to set the region ablaze..
 
It seems impossible to get everything right first time, I wouldn't expect any President to do that. As callous as it sounds a Greek insurgency in Cyprus might be a tolerable price to pay for the stability of the Middle East. If it came down to it, I'd say the latter is the thing that needs to be dealt with first and foremost.

Dewey touted his foreign policy successes in the '48 election in TTL, so perhaps if the Jews and Arabs move towards peace, perhaps Stevenson can use the promise of long-term gains to woo potentially angry Jewish voters.
 
The Americans seem to want the right things, but whether they are aware of the other players' intention is not clear.

Israel in particular may not be interested at all in following the US ideas. They will look at their military capabilities, and those of their Arab neighbors (including Egypt), and if they think they can beat them, they will seek to exploit that advantage eventually. Jordan they can beat any day of the week. Jordan, Lebanon and Syria combined, probably also. However if Egypt intervenes (very likely regardless of good Egyptian-US relations) then it's not so good for the Israelis.

And Jordan holds all of Jerusalem? Oh my. The Israelis will go at them at the earliest opportunity. And the Jordanians will probably be rash enough to offer them the pretext. Jerusalem is such an explosive city, anything could set off the spark for a war... Archaeological digs in the old city. Pilgrim access to the holy sites. Bulldozers being sighted near the wailing wall. It's a powder keg, regardless of what the US do or don't do.

Jordan also has a couple of issues here. Historically, Jordan seized the west bank because they (Hashemites) dreamed that they could seize all of Palestine for themselves. They liked the idea of being kings of the Palestinians, too, provided the Palestinians were content to give up their distinct identity and become good Jordanian subjects. But Jordan never managed to provide jobs or integrate the Palestinians in any way... Palestinians made up almost half their population, and they were restless. The expelled refugees wanted to throw the Israelis into the sea, so they could go back to their houses. In fact the Jordanian king Abdullah ended up getting shot dead in 1951 by a Palestinian who didn't want Abdullah to make peace with Israel. Being seen as soft on Israel was a terrible risk for politicians - the president of Lebanon met the same fate that same year after rumours that he wanted to make peace.

Likewise, Britain may not like the US meddling at all. Especially not in Egypt. Damn Naguib and his dam. If the Arabs give the British any crap, the Brits will try to clamp down on them militarily, as well as by underhand measures. Overthrowing governments, fortifying the Suez canal, "accidentally" sinking a coastal few patrol ships at the limits of international waters, that sort of thing.

Britain and Egypt in conflict would also open up opportunities for the Israelis against their eastern and northern neighbors.