Transnational Jihadi Movements with more successful Arab Nationalist dictators in the 1980s.

[walmart]

Two basic pods, one that Iraq manages to capture and hold Khuzestan in the Iran-Iraq war. Second that Gaddafi manages to avoid the sanctions and retains the Aouzou Strip by pulling out of Chad in 1986. This would leave both nations on far better economic grounds, add prestige to both Arab nationalism and their respective dictatorships avoiding any type of Arab spring civil wars. I assume any uprising against the Assads , would be quickly over with Iraqi intervention leaving Syria as part of Iraq or a puppet state. Given the Islamic revival is in full swing at this point and with the success of the mujahedeen against the Soviets there is still going to be a lot of Islamists running around the Arab and broader Muslim World.

What happens with the various would be both foreign and some local fighters in Syria, Iraq, and Libya heading to conflict zones in 2000s and 2010s outside of those three nations? If 9/11 and other major attacks in Western Nations by Al Qaeda and Co don't happen due to a lack of American troops in Saudi Arabia, there would be less global opposition to various Jihadist outfits around the world leaving them with a lot more leeway compared to otl.

 

[Declan]

Unfortunately, I don't see how this changes much of anything with respect to how international jihadi movements play out and how these regimes fall.

Libya:
I don't think the war to Chad and the loss really had any bearing to the Arab Spring protests. It was such a minor piece of land and such an insignificant war, I don't think the loss significantly affected his regime and nobody really cared decades on from the loss in 2011. Secondly, regarding sanctions, it might have been a factor if Libya didn't already get the sanctions removed in the OTL. The sanctions were put into place as result of the Pan Am 103 bombing. By 2003, Libya had negotiated an end to sanctions and had in fact semi-normalized relations with the West, at least for the purposes of trade. I presume in this ATL Pan Am 103 was never bombed. However, in both the OTL and this ATL, Libya wouldn't have been under sanctions by 2011. And I don't see how the sanctions introduced on Libya during the Arab Spring on Libya during the OTL wouldn't be placed in the ATL. So the Gaddafi regime still falls in 2011.

Iraq:
Since the Iran-Iraq war still happens, the first Gulf War still has a high chance of happening as well. Assuming the Iran-Iraq war ends around the same it did in the ATL with a treaty that only recognizes the transfer of land with no reparations, Iraq would still have a lot of war debt. The first Gulf War happened essentially because Kuwait was bugging Iraq for the money they hand lent Iraq for the war and also because Kuwait was kind of a nuisance in Saddam's eyes. The only way the war is avoided is if Iraq's victory spurs such emotions among Arabs, and Sunnis, that the Kuwaiti government doesn't press the issue as much in this ATL. Regardless of the if that war happened, Iraqi relations with the US would pretty much be non-existent by the mid 90s. Self-explanatory if the Gulf war does happen. If it doesn't, the US and Iraq would start to default back to their pre-war relations. The relations between the two only existed in the 80s solely for the transfer of US weapons to Iraq. Saddam had little love for the US personally. And once he got his victory, he pretty would turn his back on those who helped him. There's the issue of Israel, which was the main reason why Iraq had bad relations with the US. In the 90s, Iraq launched missiles at Israel. I would imagine, emboldened by his Iranian victory, he still does this. Obviously this leads to sanctions and an eventual severing of relations between the US and Iraq.
All of this means that in 2003, in the jingoistic fever of post 9/11 still running high, Iraq still gets pinned with WMDs and invaded. Saddam still falls

9/11:
As implied preivously, 9/11 still happens. Islamists still don't like the US, even if the US doesn't have troops in Saudi Arabia. So Osama still plans the attacks. Of all the parts of your scenario, I see 9/11 not happening as the east liekly.

Syria:
As stated prior, Ba'athist Iraq still falls, so Assad still has nothing against the Arab Spring in this ATL. Even if Saddam was around, he won't help; he would even back his own rebes. The Syrian and Iraqi Ba'athists had split by 2003. So as far as a still existing Saddam is concerned, good riddance to Assad.

 

[walmart]

I don't think the war to Chad and the loss really had any bearing to the Arab Spring protests. It was such a minor piece of land and such an insignificant war, I don't think the loss significantly affected his regime and nobody really cared decades on from the loss in 2011. Secondly, regarding sanctions, it might have been a factor if Libya didn't already get the sanctions removed in the OTL. The sanctions were put into place as result of the Pan Am 103 bombing. By 2003, Libya had negotiated an end to sanctions and had in fact semi-normalized relations with the West, at least for the purposes of trade. I presume in this ATL Pan Am 103 was never bombed. However, in both the OTL and this ATL, Libya wouldn't have been under sanctions by 2011. And I don't see how the sanctions introduced on Libya during the Arab Spring on Libya during the OTL wouldn't be placed in the ATL. So the Gaddafi regime still falls in 2011.

The Chad War was a waste but with an earlier end and retaining the strip, it would come off as a success for Gaddafi. Libya was already sanctioned by the mid 1980s until 2003. Without them, Libya is likely to end up as a Arab Nationalist version of the Gulf Countries.

Since the Iran-Iraq war still happens, the first Gulf War still has a high chance of happening as well. Assuming the Iran-Iraq war ends around the same it did in the ATL with a treaty that only recognizes the transfer of land with no reparations, Iraq would still have a lot of war debt. The first Gulf War happened essentially because Kuwait was bugging Iraq for the money they hand lent Iraq for the war and also because Kuwait was kind of a nuisance in Saddam's eyes. The only way the war is avoided is if Iraq's victory spurs such emotions among Arabs, and Sunnis, that the Kuwaiti government doesn't press the issue as much in this ATL. Regardless of the if that war happened, Iraqi relations with the US would pretty much be non-existent by the mid 90s.

Gulf War was tied to Iraqi debts and Kuwaiti drilling into Iraqi territory. With Khuzestan, Iraq has access to far more oil and it is likely the war ends earlier since Iran would be deprived of the oil and gas revenue of Khuzestan. With Iraq in a stronger position, it's likely Kuwait doesn't drill into Iraqi fields or things to come to a diplomatic agreement.

There's the issue of Israel, which was the main reason why Iraq had bad relations with the US.

It was tied to the gulf war and Iraq opposition to gulf monarchies and Shah if you are talking about the 1970s.

I would imagine, emboldened by his Iranian victory, he still does this. Obviously this leads to sanctions and an eventual severing of relations between the US and Iraq.

Saddam's rocketing of Israel was due to the hope it would enter the gulf war and break the coalition against Iraq.

As stated prior, Ba'athist Iraq still falls, so Assad still nothing against the Arab Spring in this ATL. Even if Saddam was around, he won't help; he would even back his own rebes. The Syrian and Iraqi Ba'athists had split by 2003. So as far as a still existing Saddam is concerned, good riddance to Assad.

An Iraqi intervention against the Assads, would quickly end the war by pulling the carpet out from under the Syrian government. The support of the Assads is tied to fears of Islamists which are non-existent with Iraq joining in.

 

[Byzantion]

Phillipines would still have this kind of insurgencies with foreign extremists travelling there.

 

[Declan]

The Chad War was a waste but with an earlier end and retaining the strip, it would come off as a success for Gaddafi.

Again, the jubilee of military successes would have worn off long before 2011.

Libya was already sanctioned by the mid 1980s until 2003. Without them, Libya is likely to end up as a Arab Nationalist version of the Gulf Countries.

Libya was sanctioned by the US from the mid 80s onwards indeed. But the sanctions regime against shifted from the US to the UN as result of the Lockerbie bombing. Assuming Gaddafi dodges even US sanctions, I doubt Libya would be an Arab Nationalist version of the Gulf countries. For one, Gaddafi was notoriously corrupt. Highly likelyhood of him taking much the excess oil money in this ATL for himself. While it is undeniable a lot would go to the average Libyan, it would be less than what the Gulf countries gives to its citizens.

Gulf War was tied to Iraqi debts and Kuwaiti drilling into Iraqi territory. With Khuzestan, Iraq has access to far more oil and it is likely the war ends earlier since Iran would be deprived of the oil and gas revenue of Khuzestan. With Iraq in a stronger position, it's likely Kuwait doesn't drill into Iraqi fields or things to come to a diplomatic agreement.

While Kuwaiti drilling was part of it, another part was Kuwaiti absolutely breaching OPEC quotas, making Saddam paying back the debts even harder. Like I said, Kuwait's post Iran-Iraq war actions were seen as a nuisance by Kuwait. Iraq was always in a better military position than Kuwait. So I don't think Iraq being stronger would affect how the Kuwaitis deal with Iraq. The reason for them being so bold was that they never thought Iraq would actually invade.

It was tied to the gulf war and Iraq opposition to gulf monarchies and Shah if you are talking about the 1970s.

No, it definitely had its roots with Israel. Iraq, like all Arab nationalist regimes in the 70s, had basically nonexistent relations with countries that supported Israel.

Saddam's rocketing of Israel was due to the hope it would enter the gulf war and break the coalition against Iraq.

You're right on this part. But given how emboldened this ATL Saddam would be and his pro-Palestine position, it's highly likely he would try something eventually with Israel which would break down relations with the US. That's not mentioning Saddam would have bones to pick with the Israelis for their actions during the Iran-Iraq war.

An Iraqi intervention against the Assads, would quickly end the war by pulling the carpet out from under the Syrian government. The support of the Assads is tied to fears of Islamists which are non-existent with Iraq joining in.

The personal feuds between the two are greater than any fear of Islamists. There's a reason why Syria covertly approved of the invasion of Iraq. So Saddam still won't help.

 

[Declan]

While I may take issue with some of the points in the OP, I shall try to answer your conditions faithfully.

In this ATL, for some reason Gaddafi, Saddam and Assad are running around with no war to remove them, there is no Gulf War, and Osama just simply never exists(no 9/11).

Al-Qaeda or some ATL analogue(henceforth shall be refered to as ATL Al-Qaeda for the rest of this post) would form in Afghanistan. Even without US troops in Saudi Arabia, the Islamists, who never really liked th US, would have come into conflict eventually with America because of the unipolar moment. However, this terror group decides to be more pragmatic and attack the secular and pro-Western leaders of Muslim countries. The theory is to establish a united caliphate, or at least Islamic front and that would aim to spread Islam to the rest of the world. In that regard, ATL Al-Qaeda would launch attacks in Tajikistan. Tajikistan had a civil war with Islamists in the 90s. The intervention results in the government being defeated and a new Islamist regime being set up.

ATL Al-Qaeda would also set us bases in the the post Soviet Caucasus breakaway states and in Bosnia. As a result of increased jihadi influence in Bosnia, Dayton never gets signed because the foreign fighters and local Islamists reject any proposal for a negotiated settlement with Serbs; their war only ends with the destruction of Republika Srpska. Eventually this leads to the Bosnian war to become a 3 way civil war, the Izetbegovic government, the rump remains of the VRS after NATO bombardment, and the Jihadis. This indefinitely prolongs the Bosnian war.

A series of assassination are carried by ATL Al-Qaeda in its mission of removing unfavourable leaders. Because of the instability nextdoor, Islam Karimov, the secular president of Uzbekistan, is assassinated and an Islamist government takes his place(Islamic Tajikistan invades to secure them). Another place where attacks are high is in Pakistan. Benazir Bhutto would be assassinated during her term in the 90s. Aside from the fact these people oppose ATL AL-Qaeda's agenda, they would hope by removing these people, often authoritarian, that the country would fall apart and they could step into the fill the vaccuum.

Or they would try to start an uprising. High on ATL Al-Qaeda's list would be Hosni Mubarak's Egypt and the King of Jordan(because both are friendly with Israel and the US).

Since 9/11 doesn't occur, there is no GWOT. Since there are no major attacks on targets outside Muslim countries, Putin probably allows the Caucasus breakaway states to exist so as long as they don't attack him. While Assad and Gaddafi would no doubt focus their attention on opposing jihadis. Saddam most likely would try to cut a deal with them in order to leave him alone. Saddam was never really a secularist, and throughout his reign Iraq drifted to Islamism. The deal is the Saddam effectively disinherits his son in favour for Izzat Ibhrahim Al-Douri as successor. Al-Douri was a strong proponent of political Islam inside the Ba'ath party so that makes a suitable candidate. Al-Douri however makes a secret independent deal with ATL Al-Qaeda, to effectively purge the Ba'ath party and allow jihadis influence in his government.

In the modern day of this ATL, several countries have fallen to the Islamic jihadis, though how many is up in the air. But definitely Islamism is far stronger than it is in the OTL. This is because ATL Al-Qaeda's campaign against secularists effectively intimidate many into not running for office, allowing Islamists freer reign.

ATL Al-Qaeda would be a priority for the US, and Russia. But without a GWOT, there won't be enough support to oppose them to the extent to curb their influence.