Taking a note from the political changes during the end of the Cold War and the years shortly thereafter, what if there were a similar series of major upheavals and political revolts in the Middle East during that period?
Maybe we get an Iraqi leader who would not invade Kuwait.
Actually, think how much it could help the Bush administration going into 1992 had it made the Iraqi uprisings an issue and lent support. It would have been a flag-waving issue, the US would easily have overcome Saddam, and it would have as much chance of successes and failings as anything that's gone on during the actual Arab Spring. And it wouldn't be like the recent Iraq situation was, where it was the US fighting a conventional occupational war; it'd be the US a thousand miles away, and bombarding from the sea, and then offering support to whoever manages to attain power.
Eh, Bush put too much foreign policy focus into his '92 campaign as it was. Sure, it'd be another accomplishment, but I remember a poll from the time that showed that post-Gulf War the biggest foreign concern for voters was illegal drugs. The hackneyed James Carville quote is hackneyed because it was right on the money, and some pretty photo ops in Baghdad wouldn't fix that.
I meant it'd help if it's an ongoing issue into the '92 election. Certainly the shelf life of something like that is only so long, as the Gulf war proved to the actual '92 election.
If the Arab Spring did happen in the late 80s will the U.S. and Soviets be supporting various sides?
Think 1980s El Salvador. America under Reagan will see a challenge to Mubarak et al (or Sadat, I guess, before he's assassinated) as an attempt to extend of Soviet hegemony - to be opposed by any and all means... as in OTL Central America (in a policy begun by Carter and continued by his successor. Always good to see Congress reaching across the aisle).Probably whoever is in their camp. Rebels in countries where governments are in other camp and vice versa. Think modern Libya and Bahrain.
Think 1980s El Salvador. America under Reagan will see a challenge to Mubarak et al (or Sadat, I guess, before he's assassinated) as an attempt to extend of Soviet hegemony - to be opposed by any and all means... as in OTL Central America (in a policy begun by Carter and continued by his successor. Always good to see Congress reaching across the aisle).
I dunno, the only people who could be counted on to vote based on that as opposed to the economy or social issues are probably either:
A. Neoconservatives who would all turn out for HW anyways, especially given the muscular bent of a lot of his campaign advertisement
B. Anti-interventionists who would be turned off by it
If there was a significant number of persuadable voters out there who could be swayed by an extended conflict, then they would probably respond negatively.
Isn't the real question in this scenario whether the uprising would work in toppling Saddam and what then, regardless of whether is helps Bush win reelection?
Often I feel politically/militarily, Syria will end up the next Algeria of the Arab world. A long, bloody civil war which leaves a huge imprint on society, but in which "the State" albeit much more reformed wins in the end, with a large general amnesty program.
Unlikely, considering it's in Israeli (and US) interests to smash it apart as much as possible.
Because they've done so much to smash it apart as much as possible so far, or the past 3-4 decades the anti-American Assads have been there.
Assad is a safer more stable non-enemy/non-ally to Israel than either a democratic, Islamist-democratic or jihadist Syria.