WI: Isolationist US after Obama elected

What if the US went into isolation following the election of Barack Obama? I know he campaigned on it, somewhat, but while President he's done drone strikes and the lot of other interventionist measures.

If the US did go into isolation foreign affairs wise circa 2009, who would pick up the slack, etc.?
 
The U.S. did go by U.S. post WW2 standards fairly isolationist deep in the Great Recession doldrums with the public fear of al-Qaeda or its affiliates a thing of many years past.

I think Obama was even less interventionist then the public mood even back then even though its only become more clear in the past year or so. Back then he promoted an idea the U.S. could withdraw from the Middle East without consequences so he didn't just go with the public mood he fed into the mood by providing easy answers for the public that over there didn't matter to them and the public did for the most part buy into it up to the point where Americans were being slaughtered on TV, genocide was taking place and lone wolf attacks inspired by jihadist success in the ME were talking place around the globe.
 
What if the US went into isolation following the election of Barack Obama? I know he campaigned on it, somewhat, but while President he's done drone strikes and the lot of other interventionist measures.

If the US did go into isolation foreign affairs wise circa 2009, who would pick up the slack, etc.?

Well Iran would most like make aggressive diplomatic moves with Maliki in Iraq, especially if the OTL Arab spring still occurs. Islamists would likely hijack these movement as again in OTL with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and ISIS in the Levant. What this might boil down to is a full religious sectarian armageddon between Sunni salafist groups/regimes and Shia regimes.
 
Well Iran would most like make aggressive diplomatic moves with Maliki in Iraq, especially if the OTL Arab spring still occurs. Islamists would likely hijack these movement as again in OTL with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and ISIS in the Levant. What this might boil down to is a full religious sectarian armageddon between Sunni salafist groups/regimes and Shia regimes.

Yeah but without American influence demanding the military respects the democratic process, it can repress the Muslim Brotherhood much earlier and more violently.
 
Well Iran would most like make aggressive diplomatic moves with Maliki in Iraq, especially if the OTL Arab spring still occurs. Islamists would likely hijack these movement as again in OTL with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and ISIS in the Levant. What this might boil down to is a full religious sectarian armageddon between Sunni salafist groups/regimes and Shia regimes.

From 2009.

Maliki blames Syria for attacks, Assad denies claim

AFP - Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said Monday that 90 percent of foreign terrorists who infiltrate Iraq did so via Syria, a charge likely to worsen already fractured relations between the neighbouring states. His comments came as Syrian President Bashar al-Assad dismissed allegations that his country was sheltering militants suspected of involvement in a devastating bombing in Baghdad as "immoral" and politically motivated.

The competing claims signalled no end in sight to a crisis initially triggered by Iraq's accusation that Syria is being used as a staging post for insurgents to launch deadly attacks across the border. Maliki reiterated that ties with Damascus would not improve until it handed over the suspects it blames for one of two bloody attacks on government ministries in Baghdad on August 19 that killed 95 people and wounded 600.

"Ninety percent of terrorists from different Arabic nationalities infiltrated Iraq through Syrian territory," Maliki said during a visit by the Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, aimed at cooling the row. Relations between Iraq and Syria deteriorated after Baghdad alleged Damascus was harbouring leaders behind a truck bomb attack on its finance ministry, followed within minutes by a similar attack on the foreign ministry.

"We demand that the Syrian side hand over the main people wanted in this crime," Maliki said, alluding to Baathist suspects Mohammed Yunis al-Ahmed and Sattam Farhan, "and others of whom there are Interpol warrants against."

Last week, Iraq recalled its ambassador in Damascus and Syria retaliated within hours by withdrawing its envoy from Baghdad. Maliki also insisted that Damascus "expel the terrorists, Baathists and Takfiris (extremists) who take Syria as a base to launch criminal activity inside Iraq" and said without that there would be no progress. As Maliki made his statement, Assad adamantly denied that Syria was to blame.

"Syria is accused of killing Iraqis although it welcomes 1.2 million Iraqis (refugees)," Assad said at a joint news conference in Damascus with visiting Cyprus President Demetris Christofias. "Such accusations are immoral and political. When accusations are not based on any proof, this means they are illogical in the eyes of the law," Assad added, again urging Iraq to present evidence to support its allegations.

http://www.france24.com/en/20090901-maliki-blames-syria-attacks-assad-denies-claim-

Iraq even under Maliki could have been a partner of the U.S. against the Tehran/Assad/Moscow Axis of Resistance they like to talk about as Maliki was pro-Maliki not necessarily pro-Assad or pro-Iran. It certainly could have been under Allawi as well if we backed him or pushed after the 2010 elections for a national unity government in Iraq. But, the WH in 2009 and 2010 was intent on a strategic pivot to flipping Assad so we didn't back Maliki in the conflict with Syria above. The WH told him to shut the hell up and they took a policy of slowly divorcing Iraq while trying to marry Assad the reformer as Hillary called him really up to end of 2011 when the WH realized it had to give up their ally with Assad policy as he was creating rivers of blood in his country.
 
The OTL "step back" created a power vaccum that was big enough for people to rise but too small for anyone to fill it. The result was a sort of weird stalemate where the various strongmen of the region couldn't go "all out", because going to far would bring down the West on their head. So instead of short and brutal, you had a simmering pot that spiraled ever further and further out of control, sapping resources from everyone.

In an ATL where this isn't the case, the Egyptian and Syrian revolts are put down brutally, with chemical weapons if needed. Lybia may go the same way, though this also depends on how much European intervention there is there. There might still be "regime change", but it would be the type that produces another military strongman rather than any from of democracy or broken and divided countries.

Iraq would effectively fold into Iran's arms, and crush much of Sunni resistance, though it'd be interesting to see what their relationship would be with the Kurds in this scenario.

Iranian geopolitical expansion will trigger even more alarms in Arabia than it did OTL, and the Saudis will start to respond, beefing up their military even more so than OTL and being happy to use it faster. A nuclear programme might also be in the works, especially if Iran accelerates theirs.

And that means war. The big players are likely to start muscling in on neighbours that are weak and troublesome (Egypt on Libya, Israel on Lebanon, Iran on northern Iraqi "rebels", Saudi Arabia on Yemen). That struggle may then evolve into a form of "cold war" stability between the big players, or it may mean all out war between them.
 
Iraq would effectively fold into Iran's arms, and crush much of Sunni resistance, though it'd be interesting to see what their relationship would be with the Kurds in this scenario.

I don't think baby Assad knew how to use terror as a means of control the way his dad did. If he did he would have put down the rebellion by quickly leveling cities as dad did. Obviously, you might be right that he would have gone all out early on if the U.S. was even more isolationist, but I sort of doubt it mainly as an issue of competence as a dictator not his morality.

If what you say does happen in regard to Syria lets just say Iraq isn't going to have problems in Anbar or Mosul because it was a combo of IS winning on the other side of the border getting weapons, men, training and experience and spending back to the Iraqi side along with the sectarian hate Assad's killing engendered in the tribes of Eastern Syria and by extension Western Iraq (as they are connected and in some instances the same tribe just in two different countries) made a re-emergence of insurgency and then in June of last year outright conventional warfare possible along with the U.S. pullout and subsequent mistakes of the Iraqi government.

With the rebellion being crushed in Syria in its infancy I can't see the situation you describe in Iraq even with the U.S. pullout.
 
Last edited:
^^
I imagine though, without the US, France and Britain along with other countries would have stepped in to fill the void.
 
^^
I imagine though, without the US, France and Britain along with other countries would have stepped in to fill the void.

Not against Assad with Russia having his back. Possibly against Gadaffi, though that is hard to say, but as long as the UNSC is aboard they will probably do it. The U.S. OTL 'led from behind' in that one and put no effort into building up a new national military force after to stabilize the country.
 
Top