The title explains it all. How would the progress of the war change and what would the impacts of the war be on today.
If they didn’t stop, I am certain that US would decrease their arms supply to Israel if not stop it wholly, how far could they have gone without constant US resupplying anyways?
If Israel didn’t abide by the cease-fire agreements the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty would never been signed probably,
Again, if Israeli offence continued this would severely strain their relations with the US.
Keeping in mind that Israeli forces were 100 km from Cairo and 40 from Damascus, which is a BIG advantage. If Israel was to achieve such a challenge (if you take it as an achievement) of conquering it’s hostile neighbours they would not spare Egypt’s 3rd Army Crops either, which would draw vast international criticism and a huge loss politic, economic and military support from US.
How would this all change the balance of the Middle East?
What else could have happened? Many possibilities.
There are a lot of misconceptions on the role resupply from the US and USSR played in the 1973 war. During the war the US airlifted about 20,000 tons of supplies to Israel, the Soviets about 15,000 tons to Syria and Egypt. The resupply was almost entirely ammunition; a few mostly symbolic tanks were flown in by the US. The airlifts weren’t providing replacement arms; they were providing ammunition which was being consumed at a much greater rate than either side had anticipated. The airlifts also didn’t prevent either side from running out of ammunition; what it did do was allow both sides to continue to expend ammunition at this rate that was much greater than anticipated because they knew resupply of their war stocks was being flown in. Had there been no airlift, both sides would have had to reduce the tempo of operations by restricting the daily expenditure of ammunition by their forces.
Damascus was probably militarily achievable, Cairo much less so. Just how badly on the ropes the Egyptian 3rd Army (note: not Corps) was is a matter of some debate. It had been surrounded, but actually destroying it could have proved to be a difficult and expensive task. You are seriously misreading why the destruction of the 3rd Army, or an Israeli advance on Damascus or Cairo would be a bad thing™. Destroying 3rd Army wouldn’t draw international criticism or a huge loss of political, economic or military aid from the US. Destroying an army of an enemy nation in a war isn’t a bad thing. Israel destroying the Egyptian 3rd Army would have been a bad thing™ because the superpowers were getting drawn into the conflict, and the Soviet Union did not want to see its client states humiliated or defeated. Seven Soviet airborne divisions were placed on alert status to be flown to the Middle East. In response the US DEFCON was raised from 4 to 3 and a message was sent to Sadat asking him to drop his request for Soviet assistance, and threatening that if the Soviets were to intervene, so would the United States. The concern wouldn’t be a decrease in the supply of US arms to Israel, the concern was WWIII.