Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
Now you're just pushing it.
I think it's going to be heavily overstretched which is not going to be good unless you plan on having the Arabs making mince meat of the Byzantines, if Islam is not already butterflied out.
Yeah a successful raid that forces the Persians to stay on their side of the Zagros, and makes Mesopitamia a no-mans land is very concievable and definitley possible. The Romans did that on repeated occaisions, the last being under Julian the Apostate a 150 years or so earlier. I think Belisarius could be a bit more effective though.
Alright, since all comments say that "Belisarius conquered Persia" is ASB, maybe I should edit the last part of my TL or something like that...
BTW I wonder why so many people think that "Romans took Persia" scenario is ASB, while the more ASBish scenario like "Arabs took the entire Persia and half of Byzantium" is in fact happened in OTL...
Simple, the Arabs weren't hit by the plague and demographic loss that century upon century of constant warfare brings between two major powers and their general at the time Khalid, was a military genius on par with Belisarius or Julius Caesar, who hit both Byzantine and Sassanid empires at exactly the right time. So basically the Arabs got lucky and Belisarius got unlucky.
Simple, the Arabs weren't hit by the plague and demographic loss that century upon century of constant warfare brings between two major powers and their general at the time Khalid, was a military genius on par with Belisarius or Julius Caesar, who hit both Byzantine and Sassanid empires at exactly the right time. So basically the Arabs got lucky and Belisarius got unlucky.
(This is me thinking out loud about the question you posed Rex) Basically as Alt History fans, and writers we're playing the part of bookies, trying to figure the odds of something happening. You can adjust the odds sometimes but if there are too many strikes against a particular thing happening then it becomes ASB. Its ASB for Rome to conquer Persia at this point because it has too many strikes against it, in terms of demographic loss, economic loss and the fact that Persia is too strong an opponent at this point with a brilliant Emperor of its own at the helm. I want Belisarius to do well and hey watching him conquer Persia would be awesome, but realistically speaking the moment that happens, the Romans will be hit by other barbarian tribes and you're just going to get a repeat of what the Arabs did, except that that is going to happen a few centuries earlier, and the entire empire is going to go down.
Now if Belisarius turns Mesopotamia into a no-mans land then decides to deal with Arab raiders as a side note and conducts a destructive raid on the Hejaz or decides to conquer the Hejaz in order to secure another route to India, well then you've eliminated the Arab threat for the future (I would think) and set the stage for a stronger Roman empire under Belisarius's successors to potentially conquer Persia.
These are just my thoughts on the matter so take them for what you will.