Syrian civil war starts in 1982

[mike of mass]

Here's a 1st time what if?
Suppose that in 1982 the Muslim brotherhood's uprising in Hama, Syria was not immediately quashed by Hafez Al Assad and instead sparked a Sunni uprising? Here are some butterflies I propose aside from 20 000 people suddenly not being dead;
1) No Israeli invasion of Lebanon. No interest on the part of the Israelis to get anywhere near the Sectarian fighting to the North. Thus, the more secular Amal and not Hizballah captures the hearts and minds of Lebanons's Shia. less terrorism, possibly greater Western involvement in stabilizing Lebanon earlier.
2) Al Qaida using Eastern Syria rather than Afghanistan as it's training ground.
3) If the civil war lasts until 1990, does Saddam attack westward rather than southward?If so, do the Israelis decide to support the Alawite regime?
4) Russia being humiliated by the debacle of Afghanistan and the economic crisis of Perestroika decides to send Warsaw pact/ Russian troops to bolster Assad. Reagan does what?
5) Arafat being Palestinian, misses another opportunity. Or does he?

 

[Realpolitik]

Here's a 1st time what if?
Suppose that in 1982 the Muslim brotherhood's uprising in Hama, Syria was not immediately quashed by Hafez Al Assad and instead sparked a Sunni uprising? Here are some butterflies I propose aside from 20 000 people suddenly not being dead;
1) No Israeli invasion of Lebanon. No interest on the part of the Israelis to get anywhere near the Sectarian fighting to the North. Thus, the more secular Amal and not Hizballah captures the hearts and minds of Lebanons's Shia. less terrorism, possibly greater Western involvement in stabilizing Lebanon earlier.
2) Al Qaida using Eastern Syria rather than Afghanistan as it's training ground.
3) If the civil war lasts until 1990, does Saddam attack westward rather than southward?If so, do the Israelis decide to support the Alawite regime?
4) Russia being humiliated by the debacle of Afghanistan and the economic crisis of Perestroika decides to send Warsaw pact/ Russian troops to bolster Assad. Reagan does what?
5) Arafat being Palestinian, misses another opportunity. Or does he?

Hafez has a lot more experience than Bashar, first off. He's very cold, calculating, and intelligent. Don't underestimate him or what he'd do. Anyway, I don't know much about the Lebanese Civil War or that time period, so here are my guesses.

1) But wouldn't Assad having other things to deal with give Hezbollah more of a chance? I was under the impression he supported Amal early on, and then played divide and conquer.

2) Afghanistan isn't going away.

3) It won't last that long. Hafez ran a very tight ship. But if it does, why would Saddam do that? It doesn't have the oil he wants, that can erase his national debt from the war with Iran.

4) You can bet Reagan will get his nose in it, and if Congress doesn't let him, he will go covert. No WAY he doesn't react.

5) No clue, but my guess is that Arafat would be even more under pressure due to the Israelis being even more focused on him without focusing on Lebanon.

 

[mike of mass]

thanks for responding

You are correct that Hafez was more calculating and ruthless than Bashar. However, Syrian demographics remain the same. If the revolt spreads quickly enough to other Sunni centers he may not be able to crush the uprising quickly. I am sure he would use chemical weapons. Although that may panic the Israelis into an invasion of Syria that the rest of the Arab league would give a nod and wink to.
Saddam wanted primacy of the Iraqi ba'ath party. Taking over Syria would give him that. The trans syrian pipeline would give him a secure shipping route for his oil and make the egomaniac a player in the Med.
As for Afghanistan, in OTL it was not al qaida's only base operations just the main one. I am proposing that it is more of a peripheral or fall back area of operations for the group.

 

[TxCoatl1970]

Um the Muslim brotherhood rose up in 1982 to challlenge Hafez Assad in the city of Hama that was ruthlessly crushed.

From wikipedia:
The [Syrian Ba'ath]government was not without its critics, though open dissent was repressed. A serious challenge arose in the late 1970s, however, from fundamentalist Sunni Muslims, who rejected the secular values of the Ba'ath program and objected to rule by the Shia Alawis. After the Islamic Revolution in Iran, Muslim groups instigated uprisings and riots in Aleppo, Homs and Hama and attempted to assassinate Assad in 1980. In response, Assad began to stress Syria's adherence to Islam. At the start of Iran-Iraq war, in September 1980, Syria supported Iran, in keeping with the traditional rivalry between Ba'athist leaderships in Iraq and Syria. The arch-conservative Muslim Brotherhood, centered in the city of Hama, was finally crushed in February 1982 when parts of the city were hit by artillery fire and leaving between 10,000 and 25,000 people, mostly civilians, dead or wounded (see Hama massacre).[33] The government's actions at Hama have been described as possibly being "the single deadliest act by any Arab government against its own people in the modern Middle East".[34] Since then, public manifestations of anti-government activity have been limited.[12]

 

[mike of mass]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with the Wikipedia entry. I am aware of what happened in OTL. I am proposing that the Hama uprising is not crushed so quickly or effectively. Do we see the rise of ISIL or al Nusra types / disintegration of Syria (and all the butterflies that steps on) 30 years early?

 

[Revolutionary Avocado]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with the Wikipedia entry. I am aware of what happened in OTL. I am proposing that the Hama uprising is not crushed so quickly or effectively. Do we see the rise of ISIL or al Nusra types / disintegration of Syria (and all the butterflies that steps on) 30 years early?

The Muslim Brotherhood is a fundamentally different type of organization than al-Qaeda. They are religious nationalists for the most part, and advocate taking over states and embracing modernity in a defensive way. They also are not interested in international jihad against the West, only liberating Muslim lands from Western influence. A Brotherhood-run Syria would probably end up controlling everything except for the Alawi coastal enclaves, which would end up as a Soviet-backed parastate.

To get back to the OP, the best way for this to work would be to have someone successfully assassinate Hafez al-Assad in 1980 or '81, and have a power struggle between Rifaat al-Assad, Hafez's brother and a key member of the hardliner security establishment, and Mustafa Tlass, Defence Minister and a Sunni. That could fatally weaken the regime, especially if Tlass's allies end up defecting to a Brotherhood-led opposition movement.

 

[Deleted member 9338]

The IDF will still move up to at least the Litine River for no other reason than to clear out the PLO strong holds along the border.

Reagan will get involved, you can count on that.