trajen777
Banned
Trouble in Bulgaria had begun already in 976 with the Cometopuli revolt against the Byzantine conquest since 970 and Samuel becoming sole ruler in 976. The problem from the Byzantine point of view is that then Samuel was then left free to operate with effectively no opposition till 989 due to the Bardas revolts with Samuel taking control of territory from the Adriatic to the Black sea, turning him into a far more formidable enemy than he would had been otherwise. ATL he instead has to deal with John I leading armies after him from the spring of 977. Thus it's reasonable to assume that by the early 990s at the latest Bulgaria has been completely conquered. Which ties all too well to the start of thhe Fatimid war of OTL.
Whether the Byzantines wanted to go much futher than Antioch is debatable I think. John's campaigns certainly don't look that way, Basil who essentially kept on the defensive thanks to his Bulgarian war still took Tartus and fomented rebellion in Tyre. And the imperative to take Jerusalem will always be there, the prestige both within the empire and in the rest of the Christian world over taking the Holy land is just too big to be ignored if it looks feasible.
This would be most likely butterflied away by John being in and not the chaos of his death.