Obama topples the Assad regime in 2013

Pellaeon

Banned
In Fall of 2013 the US was on the verge of attacking Syria in response to the Ghouta attacks. The risk of WW3, combined with overwhelming popular opposition resulted in Obama holding back. Also Cameron couldn't get parliamentary support for the action.

Putin then stepped in and had Assad formally give up his chemical weapons(most of them) to save face for Obama and increase his own prestige. After the red line fiasco.

What if Obama hadn't held back and had ignored popular opposition? And launched a full scale bombing and air offensive against the Syrian government with the aim of regime change?

Would ISIS have emerged six months earlier(they already existed as an organization), would Al-Nusra be sitting in the palace in Damascus? Would the alawites have to flee to Iran?

Speaking of Iran-how would they and Russia react to the loss of their client state?

What would the consequences have been for Syria? Another civil war? Mass genocide of religious minorities?

Is WW3 a possibility?

Note: These events occurred fairly recently-just four years ago. So if a mod wishes to move the thread to chat feel free to do so.
 

Chromium

Banned
Nothing really unexpected would've happened. Every Shi'ite, Christian, and Pagan in Syria would be dead by now, we'd have a nice Wahhabi Saudi puppet state at Damascus coming up nicely, Turkey & Iran would be running for cover by day & scheming together by night, expect the Saudis to openly commit genocide in Yemen (as opposed to slowly starving them like now), and everyone to be really pissed off.

There'd be no ISIS of course. We'd still have a similar organization- but it'll be called the Syrian government.
 

Pellaeon

Banned
Nothing really unexpected would've happened. Every Shi'ite, Christian, and Pagan in Syria would be dead by now, we'd have a nice Wahhabi Saudi puppet state at Damascus coming up nicely, Turkey & Iran would be running for cover by day & scheming together by night, expect the Saudis to openly commit genocide in Yemen (as opposed to slowly starving them like now), and everyone to be really pissed off.

There'd be no ISIS of course. We'd still have a similar organization- but it'll be called the Syrian government.
You don't think the Russians and Iranians would throw everything possible to prevent this outcome?
 
What kind of removal? Was it

1) a Ngo Tinh Diem style removal, whereas only Assad and his immediate family member were killed, but the Alawite officer corp and their army remained largely intact; or

2) a Saddam style removal, whereas the US army marched in and took full military control of the country; or

3) a Manzikert style removal, whereas The Syrian government was destroyed together with its army, but no effort was made on creating a new government.

For scenario (1), pretty much same as today; (2), see Iraq War; (3), Chrimium’s genocide might not be very far away.
 
As much as I detest the Syrian regime, I predict that with the loss of a strongman like Bashar al-Assad in such circumstances, Syria would fall into the same situation Libya found itself in after Gaddafi fell. Any succeeding government (either elected by the people or imposed by the West) is going to have to deal with warlords and militias, trying to carve out their own spheres of influence. This power vacuum would also attract Islamic extremists who, without any strong government to stop them, could easily attempt to create their equivalent of the Islamic State.

The Kurds would see this as a prime opportunity to carve out their own territory and like in our timeline, they would wage war on Islamic extremists, with America's support, much to the consternation of any new Syrian government, who would fear that a Kurdish country in the north would only serve as a rallying cry to factions throughout the country.

Russia and Iran would not be happy to see the Syrian regime fall. They would attempt to restore the Ba'athist regime and on the international stage, limit any international recognition of the new Syrian government, declaring it illegitimate.

In short, Syria would be in a worse mess than it already is.
 

Ak-84

Banned
We would not have been having this discussion, as we all be dead because of the Global Thermonuclear War that occurred in Autumn of 2013. One of the reasons Obama backed down was since the Russians had learned their lesson from Libya had made it clear they were not going to let NATO create a "humanitarian" no-fly zone and then use it to roll forward the and enforce Western policies.

Even ignoring that fact and going full ASB there is this.Of course, while the Syrian regime is no match for the US military, they are/were not totally incapable and could at least cause some casualties amongst the Americans, enough that either the US goes with a ridiculously restrictive ROE (ala Kosovo '99) which accomplishes fuck all or see the spectre of shot down Amercian pilots on SyrianTV/possibly videos of ships on fire. Hell, this is the time of the sequester when USN carrier groups were having training cruises (never mind deployments) outright canceled. The US Military was very very uneager about the whole prospect, even without the specter of Armageddon.

Does Nuclear War butterfly away Trump?
 

Chromium

Banned
You don't think the Russians and Iranians would throw everything possible to prevent this outcome?

I thought we were operating under the assumption that Russia & Iran have already allowed Obama to annihilate the Syrian Army- and thus, for all effective purposes, the Syrian Government. Otherwise we'd all be sitting on a Cinder after Putin nuked the East Coast.

The Syrian Army is essentially the entire military age population of the Shi'ite, Druze, and (some) Christians. If the US knocks it out of commission, then the Syrians not only have to contend with a near annihilation of any political power but also a significant chunk of their demographics. They might've held off Sunni militias for most part- thanks to the hills- but they'd be completely open to any and all offensives after an American assault.

NB:- Expect there to be a real Kurdistan in place after the dust settles. Part of the reason for the current mess there IMO is because the CIA & the Arabs have been successfully playing off the various factions against each other since 2013. If they see that Obama is in open alliance with the Sunnis, they might just close ranks- or put their lot in with Iran. Only thing left would be see which way Erdogan goes.
 
Okay, lets first ask, how?

Where does the Western Coalition use as a base? Do they march in from Western Iraq through the desert? An amphibious landing in the heart of Alawite country? Do they use Israel and the Golan Heights? Does Turkey want in?

And what kind of force deployment would be necessary? Are we talking 3 divisions and a whole bunch of special forces? An armored spearhead followed by multiple infantry divisions? These kind of questions matter in how they shape the short and long terms array of forces.

Before you all go down the roads of recriminations and blaming and all of that, how does this even happen?

Airstrikes alone would not be enough to topple the regime. Gaddafi was in a much weaker position and his survival, unlike Assads, was not critical to the survival of a bunch of other groups. Assad was a minority in a coalition of minorities ruling oppressively over a Sunni Arab majority. Gaddafi was a Sunni Arab who outfitted Sunni Arab militias to massacre people in Darfur. These are very different situations.

I understand that the US has very good power projection capabilities. But outside of the Kurds, who are the reliable local partners? And how do you get a shit ton of logistics in place to make this viable without causing the Syrian regime to put in position a blocking force with Russian help?
 

Ak-84

Banned
Contrary to lots of Western propaganda Assad does have some Sunni support. As well as people might not like Assad, but they like foreign invaders even less. The answer in that region to the question “is the US less popular than_________”, is always “Yes”. Since 2003.
 

Pellaeon

Banned
I imagined the intervention would come from saturation strikes from the Mediterranean. It wouldn't be a ground invasion.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
How will Hizballah cope with the aftermath? Will the Israelis be more or less satisfied than OTL about the situation on their northern and northeastern borders.
 

Pellaeon

Banned
How will Hizballah cope with the aftermath? Will the Israelis be more or less satisfied than OTL about the situation on their northern and northeastern borders.
I suppose it would depend on how the Syrian situation proceeded. If the country fragmented into rebel on rebel civil war and Warlordism, Hezbollah I think would be busy fighting Sunni jihadists in the hills of Lebanon.

Israel I think would be happy to see the threat on their northern front dealt with. Though the IDF would be busy in retaliating against any rebel incursions in the Golan.
 

Ak-84

Banned
I imagined the intervention would come from saturation strikes from the Mediterranean. It wouldn't be a ground invasion.
From carriers? In the narrow waters of the Med, that would get very interesting very fast. The Syrians have some capable AShMs, like P800. While most would be shot down even a single one would either cause an all hands lost situation on a Burke, or hundreds of casualties on a Carrier.
 

Pellaeon

Banned
From carriers? In the narrow waters of the Med, that would get very interesting very fast. The Syrians have some capable AShMs, like P800. While most would be shot down even a single one would either cause an all hands lost situation on a Burke, or hundreds of casualties on a Carrier.
That would make things interesting especially with regards to public opinion.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
It seems to me the state with the most decisive potential to influence the situation, for or against the Assad regime, is Turkey, having the longest border and a much better (NATO-standard) and bigger military and overall population.

If they are willing to provide logistical support to an anti-regime effort, or the rebels, and can accept the idea that they'll get a few cuts and bruises in the process, the Damascus regime is done. If you don't have the Turks onside, this is all so much more difficult.
 
It seems to me the state with the most decisive potential to influence the situation, for or against the Assad regime, is Turkey, having the longest border and a much better (NATO-standard) and bigger military and overall population.

If they are willing to provide logistical support to an anti-regime effort, or the rebels, and can accept the idea that they'll get a few cuts and bruises in the process, the Damascus regime is done. If you don't have the Turks onside, this is all so much more difficult.

The tricks here are twofold. Firstly, Turkey has Assad's patron Russia breathing down her neck. Putin needs to somehow be neutralized/placated/distracted. Secondly, this would require the U.S conceding a large seat at the table on the post-Assad situation to Turkey... Possible, but it goes against the grain somewhat for the Obama policy
 
Here is the thing, if you want Russia to somehow go against decades of friendship with Syria you have to placate Putin with something huge, like giving him a free hand in regards to countries like Ukraine, Georgia, the Baltics, and Poland...other than that I don't think there is anyway you can realistically see Moscow giving up it's assets which would have likely brought in Russia earlier or in the face of collapse see them salvage the SAR in the coastal heartland where govt support has always been strongest. Iran would require something along those lines as well. You would have a mix of groups sitting in Damascus as iirc there was still a somewhat sizeable 'moderate' opposition that hadn't been completely been consumed by Islamists just yet but we'd hear horror stories from those who made it to this rump Syrian state. As for Syria outside of govt control...I see it turning into Afghanistan where factions vie for power and resources.
 
It depends on what kind of action Obama takes.

Does he just do far heavier, more precise bombing runs targeting government and military forces?

Does he OFFICIALLY put boots on the ground? I say officially because we HAD troops deployed there.

Does he just decide to back a faction and arm them to the teeth?

Each has different retributions back home and abroad, and it also matters at what point does the intervention happen - say, backing up his "thin red line" with military might?

Me personally, ANYTHING would be an improvement over OTL, when he did nothing, let Assad gas away, the Russians come in and play, and then ISIS overran half the region.
 
That would make things interesting especially with regards to public opinion.
Obama had a mandate to do whatever he pleased on the international stage in 2013 if he was able to get the House onside. And they would be onside if he could prove definitively that Assad used chemical weapons. Public opinion was largely insignificant other than in terms of depressing the Democrats for 2014 (their activist wing hates using military power and prefers self flagellation of foreign policy).

American casualties would merely make the Jacksonian wing of both parties call for less restraint, would do nothing to dampen the enthusiasm of the neoconservatives and liberal internationalists, and the Tea Party Right was far more focused on the budget battles in late 2013 and the amnesty debate. They would not get into anti-war activism.
 

iVC

Donor
Bashar al-Assad could easily be (and mostly still is) a bastard like Gaddafi and Saddam were, but still he is a 'civilized' and 'secular' leader. Whatever iron-fisted brutes Saddam and Gaddafi were, they still were better than total fustercluck boiling now in (former) Iraq and (former) Libya.

As for me, secular tyrants with hospitals, schools and working infrastructure and social services are indisputable better than XVII-century-like tribal and narrow-minded warlords (and their respectable daredevil Sharia governments).

---

Russia would do nothing, just sit down and exclaim against all of this in the UN along with China. Iran would probably be involved in the proxy security raids.
Putin just doesn't have the mentality to strike sparkles with EU/USA.
Syria would be just consumed by civil war madness in all its ISIS gory and glory.
 
Top