The Political And Strategic Consequences Of The Six Day War Of 1967

The Six day war of 1967 was unquestionably one of the most awesome things to happen in modern history. The events of the rapid war are still studied today in military academy’s world wide. The war even took on spiritual dimension for the nation of Israel, who had mostly secular motivations until that point. However, what is perhaps the most interesting is the political and strategic choices and consequences of the war. The dynamics of power in the Middle East were forever changed by a few simple choices. The set up for the war can be illustrated as a two player simultaneous game between Israel and Egypt. Egypt currently lead bu Gamal Abdel Nasser was the de facto leader of the Arab world. While he had made some failed attempts to consolidate …show more content…
Attack means an attempt at a preemptive strike on the foreign antagonist while hold means do nothing and slowly deescalate. We assume the players in this game are rational, even if their populations may be bloodthirsty and have very different payouts. Should both factions go on he aggressive the Israeli Forces will ultimately gain the upper hand because of their highly coordinated troops. Both sides were in position high powered weapons and aircraft courtesy of other world powers, granting the edge to the Israeli offensive. However being attacked on all sides would likely result in losses either in potential spoils or actual lost land. On the Arab side the technical loss would be a set back, but propaganda and fervor from attacking Israel would help cement the regimes legitimacy making the losses not as severe. If both sides go on the defensive Israel will neither have significant gains or losses from the result. The population would be shaken from Arab Psy Ops and propaganda but weathering the storm would give them more time to build legitimacy on the international stage. For the Arab nations not following through with their threats would anger the population but keep their military resources safe and allow for faster buildup for future conflicts. Furthermore for both sides this would be the first steps towards a lasting …show more content…
While Arab Forces waited Israeli forces issued one of the most devastating surprise attacks in the history of war. In a few hours the Egyptian Air force was completely demolished. Worse yet needing to save face with its allies and downplay the damages its people knew about, Jordan and Syria were mislead and faced a similar attack. With the only air power in the war Israel was able quickly carve out sections of the Sinai, Golan Heights, and West bank. The wars results were so fast and awesome many Israelis saw it as divine intervention, and not matter the case Israel was the unchallenged top military power in the area. Furthermore the weakness of Egypt and its allies lead to a new middle eastern union, this time headed more by Saudi Arabia and its oil profits. Why did Egypt choose to Deviate from its dominate strategy? Nasser was a rational player and knew the potential consequences. On issue with showcasing the conflict in this way is that the final results of a war are close to impossible to know until they are over. No one expected the Israeli surprise attack to be so effective, even if people knew they had the upper-hand. Furthermore It could be argued the payout matrix was less accurate because player may have chosen to attack, but simply at a later time, though the strategy of perpetual delays and threats is had to