Assad regime overthrown by early 1980s - knock-ons

If the Muslim Brotherhood took over Syria by the early 1980s

  • Hezbollah will never get as strong as OTL in Lebanon

    Votes: 6 50.0%
  • Hezbollah gets as strong as OTL in Lebanon, Lebanon still becomes a quagmire for Israel

    Votes: 1 8.3%
  • The ceasefire line on the Golan is maintained

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The ceasefire line on the Golan becomes the scene of frequent escalating Syrian-Israeli clashes

    Votes: 2 16.7%
  • MB Syria inspires earlier activation of violent Islamist terrorist movement among Palestinians

    Votes: 4 33.3%
  • MB Syria has a net positive relationship with Iraq

    Votes: 3 25.0%
  • MB Syria has a net negative relationship with Iraq

    Votes: 2 16.7%
  • Saudi Arabia and MB Syria get along

    Votes: 2 16.7%
  • Saudi Arabia and MB Syria do no get along

    Votes: 2 16.7%
  • There is a genocide or exodus of Syrian sectarian minorities

    Votes: 8 66.7%
  • There are breakaway states in Syria, possibly Alawite, Druze or Kurdish

    Votes: 8 66.7%

  • Total voters
    12

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
What if the assassination attempt against Hafez Assad by the Muslim Brotherhood in 1979 succeeded, civil war broke out, and the Muslim Brotherhood and aligned politicians emerged victorious by the middle of 1982?

What does this end up meaning for Syria's internal conditions and foreign policy, for Lebanon, the Golan Heights and so forth?

The Muslim Brotherhood won't have the special connection Assad forged with Shia militias. At the same time, it might align from time to time with Iran or Iranian-aligned groups for anti-Israeli purposes [as late as the Hama massacre in OTL, some say the Syrian MB admired Khomeini].

OTL, the Assad regime's technique in the 1980s was to strictly maintain the ceasefire with the Israelis on the Golan Front, while striking against them through supporting guerrillas and terrorists in Lebanon and internationally.

How will things go with a Muslim Brotherhood regime in charge in Damascus instead? Will this regime maintain the ceasefire, or will Golan in the 1980s be the scene of constant shelling and raids that Lebanon was?

Internationally, the Syrian regime will have difficulty getting along with the west, because of Israel, but will also have problems with the USSR because of its invasion of Afghanistan and its support for the prior regime. How does the regime arm itself and who does it cooperate with the most?

Does
 

natalieb

Banned
Despite popular belief even in Israel, Israel has never formally annexed the Golan so the theoretic possibility of its return remains even today.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Despite popular belief even in Israel, Israel has never formally annexed the Golan so the theoretic possibility of its return remains even today.

Never heard that before. Somewhat interesting if true.

Nothing in this scenario is likely to make said return more probable compared to OTL I think.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Which is worse for Israel in terms of inflicting casualties directly and by proxy in the 1980s, 1990s and beyond?
1. an alternate, Sunni-dominated, fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood regime, or
2. OTL's Alawite-dominated, secular, but Iran and Hezbollah linked, Baathist regime of the Assad family?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Which is worse for Israel in terms of inflicting casualties directly and by proxy in the 1980s, 1990s and beyond?
1. an alternate, Sunni-dominated, fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood regime, or
2. OTL's Alawite-dominated, secular, but Iran and Hezbollah linked, Baathist regime of the Assad family?
That might depend on how aggressively this Syrian Sunni regime funds Palestinian terrorists; indeed, I doubt that it would have funded Hezbollah for sectarian reasons but if it would have funded Hamas and the radical wing(s) of Fatah much more than Syria did in our TL, then this could "compensate" for this. :(
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Internationally, the Syrian regime will have difficulty getting along with the west, because of Israel, but will also have problems with the USSR because of its invasion of Afghanistan and its support for the prior regime. How does the regime arm itself and who does it cooperate with the most?
As a regime which is hostile to both Shiite Muslims and Israel, this Syrian Sunni regime might very well ally with Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Syria and Iraq were lead by two different factions of the baath party , Who hated each other , Even to the point syria backed iran and the gulf war
Here the Assad regime is overthrown and replaced with the anti-Shiite, anti-Israel Muslim Brotherhood, though.
 
Here the Assad regime is overthrown and replaced with the anti-Shiite, anti-Israel Muslim Brotherhood, though.
He would strike during the civil war , If he is not bogged down in Iran . If he is then post war , He will ally with them
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
As a regime which is hostile to both Shiite Muslims and Israel, this Syrian Sunni regime might very well ally with Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

if Saddam holds out on invading Iran , He will go for Syria and He will end up with whole country .

I would not rule out either idea. In favor of CaliGuy's is "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and Sunni anti-Shia glue.

In favor of Noscoper's idea, Syria would be vulnerable in a civil war, and, as with Iran, he might see an MB rebellion as a bad example that could catch on in Iraq. Getting eastern Syria should be achievable and could be sold as a step toward modernization and Arab unity. There is at least a marginal benefit in getting control of the Syrian course of the Euphrates and some of the grain-growing land and oilfields to the north. As Saddam goes west, he becomes vulnerable to overextension as he is sticking his nose up right between Turkey and Israel.

Of course, any decision to attack Syria instead of Iran needs to be made well before September 1980, but I suppose with an Assad assassination in 1979, the Syrian civil war could be at full force by mid 1980.

The main thing that will remain attractive though about attacking Iran and not Syria though is that there is more to gain in terms of historic Iraqi claims to the Shatt-al-Arab, and the heavily populated part of Iraq is close to the heavily populated part of Iran along a long border, so Iran is more of a threat.
 
Despite popular belief even in Israel, Israel has never formally annexed the Golan so the theoretic possibility of its return remains even today.

insanenetanyahulaughing.jpg
 

CaliGuy

Banned
The main thing that will remain attractive though about attacking Iran and not Syria though is that there is more to gain in terms of historic Iraqi claims to the Shatt-al-Arab, and the heavily populated part of Iraq is close to the heavily populated part of Iran along a long border, so Iran is more of a threat.
Actually, the Shatt al-Arab is only a part of the prize that would come from winning a war with Iran. Indeed, the other--arguably even more important--part of this would be that a win in a war with Iran would allow Saddam Hussein's Iraq to control a large--indeed, very possibly a huge--part of Iran's oil reserves:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Iran_Oil_and_Gas_Fields.png

Iran_Oil_and_Gas_Fields.png


Thus, if he has a choice between invading Iran and invading Syria, Saddam would probably go for Iran. After all, he can always invade Syria after he wins his war with Iran--or so he thinks. (Indeed, invading Syria after a victory in Iran could make sense for Saddam in part due to the fact that annexing eastern Syria would strengthen the position of Sunni Arabs in Iraq due to the increase in their numbers that such an annexation would result in.)
 
In favor of Noscoper's idea, Syria would be vulnerable in a civil war, and, as with Iran, he might see an MB rebellion as a bad example that could catch on in Iraq. Getting eastern Syria should be achievable and could be sold as a step toward modernization and Arab unity.
Assad Forces would crumble , The minute Iraq troops cross the border . Given Saddam would not kill off the religious minorities or run Islamic theocracy. A lot of Assad's force would join Saddam and along with a lot of the moderate rebels due him being a Sunni .

so Iran is more of a threat.
Iran is still stuck doing purges in 1980 , There not a threat yet
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Interesting how this thread almost got merged or mixed up with the "Beirut to Busher" thread.

Going beyond the OP, how would you answer my poll questions if instead of the 1980s as our PoD, the PoD is Assad falling to internal rebellion between 2012 and 2014 and a Sunni-dominated coalition taking over? The idea is the rebels/uprising do better in its first years, or the regime screws up worse, or the Turks intervene in the border areas enough to at least turn the tide and send the Assads packing.

If Assad's lost the civil war in 2012, 2013 or 2014, what's post-Assad Syria like and what does it mean for the various neighboring countries, including Israel?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
He would be ruling a rump Alawite state while the rest of the country would Resemble Libya

Hmm. Libya....only a landlocked version of Libya.

Does not sound too orderly. So I'd expect a lot violence on the borders with Jordan and Israel.
 
Top