WI: No Syrian civil war

So let's say, in early March 2011, Obama and Clinton are advised that not only is the Assad regime is vulnerable to the Arab Spring, Syria itself would implode into a bloodbath where only cartoonishly evil Islamists could gain. It's therefore not in the interest of the US to see the Assad regime fall.

When the protests against Assad start, Obama privately tells Assad that, for domestic consumption only, he will verbally condemn Assad and impose a few token sanctions, but do nothing concrete to overthrow the Assad regime.

Obama also makes it clear to Erdogan that the US wants no part in regime change in Syria. Erdogan also calculates that an imploded Syria would cause trouble with the Kurdish people, so limits his involvement to verbally expressing disappointment and accepting a few thousand refugees.

As a result, the Syrian protests are brutally crushed, but Assad is in complete control by May 2011. For good measure, a few planeloads of weapons arrive from Moscow. It's a repeat of the 1982 uprising.

What happens next? The US is sure to be accused of bombing Libya but not Syria purely due to oil. Will the Saudis sense betrayal due to the US leaving an Iranian ally alone? Will Iran and Putin sense US weakness and exploit it?
 

trurle

Banned
So let's say, in early March 2011, Obama and Clinton are advised that not only is the Assad regime is vulnerable to the Arab Spring, Syria itself would implode into a bloodbath where only cartoonishly evil Islamists could gain. It's therefore not in the interest of the US to see the Assad regime fall.

When the protests against Assad start, Obama privately tells Assad that, for domestic consumption only, he will verbally condemn Assad and impose a few token sanctions, but do nothing concrete to overthrow the Assad regime.

Obama also makes it clear to Erdogan that the US wants no part in regime change in Syria. Erdogan also calculates that an imploded Syria would cause trouble with the Kurdish people, so limits his involvement to verbally expressing disappointment and accepting a few thousand refugees.

As a result, the Syrian protests are brutally crushed, but Assad is in complete control by May 2011. For good measure, a few planeloads of weapons arrive from Moscow. It's a repeat of the 1982 uprising.

What happens next? The US is sure to be accused of bombing Libya but not Syria purely due to oil. Will the Saudis sense betrayal due to the US leaving an Iranian ally alone? Will Iran and Putin sense US weakness and exploit it?

I doubt the insurrection of 2011 was so easy to suppress as insurrection of 1982. The Syrian army men defected sometimes by entire companies to the rebel side in the late 2011, as i remember. And other destabilizing forces (Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey) were also in play. So without US, the result would be continuation of war into 2015, may be with less equipment loss on government side, so some of the rebels can be isolated. May be Assad`s forces would be able to complete the encirclement of Aleppo. They come close to it IOTL anyway.
 
I doubt the insurrection of 2011 was so easy to suppress as insurrection of 1982. The Syrian army men defected sometimes by entire companies to the rebel side in the late 2011, as i remember. And other destabilizing forces (Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey) were also in play. So without US, the result would be continuation of war into 2015, may be with less equipment loss on government side, so some of the rebels can be isolated. May be Assad`s forces would be able to complete the encirclement of Aleppo. They come close to it IOTL anyway.

Initially, the rebellion was simply street protests demanding better human rights. IIRC, it took months before any major defections occurred. So TTL, Assad mobilizes his preatorean guard to mow down the protesters Tiananmen style. After a few days, order is restored, though at a gruesome human cost. Obama makes another live speech condemning it, but does nothing else.
 

TinyTartar

Banned
The best way to not have Syria explode is to crush the protests quickly. Appeasing them with promises might help, but really, using SAA troops of Sunni background was not a smart idea when deciding to crush the protests.

Rather, Syria needs some kind of unifying event. Maybe you get another Israeli-Hezbollah war over rocket strikes hitting Israel, and Assad decides to screw treaties and jump in on Hezbollah's side, leading to war over the Golan Heights.

The rally round the flag effect would be instantaneous. The international effect would be disastrous. But the civil war would be averted.
 

celt

Banned
You need to prevent the Western intervention in Libya or at least the movement of fighters and weapons to Syria from there.
 
Rather, Syria needs some kind of unifying event. Maybe you get another Israeli-Hezbollah war over rocket strikes hitting Israel, and Assad decides to screw treaties and jump in on Hezbollah's side, leading to war over the Golan Heights.

Then what happens once Assad loses?
 
Then what happens once Assad loses?

Honestly, if he spins it right, nothing too bad. After all, "those Zionist pigs" have defeated many Arab regimes throughout history, right? So there's not really any dishonor in defeat by them - especially since everyone knows that it was actually the US you effectively fight when you attack Israel!

He may even garner some sympathy for trying to advance the Arab cause against overwhelming odds.

Of course, if he bungles it or spins it wrong, or it ends up especially long or disastrous, he'll probably be removed by popular revolts that he can't put down because his army's too tied down or shredded.
 
Err... no, losing against Israel legitimatized many regimes since 1948 (the Egyptians being the most notable).
 
The best way to not have Syria explode is to crush the protests quickly. Appeasing them with promises might help, but really, using SAA troops of Sunni background was not a smart idea when deciding to crush the protests.

Rather, Syria needs some kind of unifying event. Maybe you get another Israeli-Hezbollah war over rocket strikes hitting Israel, and Assad decides to screw treaties and jump in on Hezbollah's side, leading to war over the Golan Heights.

The rally round the flag effect would be instantaneous. The international effect would be disastrous. But the civil war would be averted.

Why does it have to be a war with Israel? Far too risky.

Instead, Assad sends his elite troops to mow down the protesters, and then broadcast propaganda somehow linking the protesters to the west/al Qaida/the Zionists/take your pick.
 
Top