What if Obama never endorsed the Arab Spring?

If President Barrack Obama never endorsed the Arab Spring, he would have had a more sizable impact in the war on terror.

If Barrack Obama had never overthrown Gidaffi in Libya, Gidaffi would have regained control of Libya between 2011 and 2012. Had Obama never supported the uprising in Syria and forbidden his Muslim allies in funding the Syrian Opposition, Bashar Al-Assad would have remained in power after crushing an uprising in 1 or 2 years.

In short, ISIS would have never existed in Syria and Libya, and never existed as a separate entity from Al-Qaeda.

It would have meant that in 2014, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, while certain to create instability and chaos in Iraq under the name ISI (the Islamic State of Iraq), would have been unable to declare a Caliphate by crushing the Syria-Iraqi border. He would have only been able to urge Muslims to fighting their governments.

ISI would have never been powerful enough to break away from Al-Qaeda - only cause a resurgence of bloodletting in Iraq.

Obama would have returned to Iraq as he did in 2014, but he would have never had to combat as extensive an ISIS threat as he did in the later years of his Presidency. He would have been able to maintain that efforts and focus must be maintained towards Afghanistan over and above Iraq.

Obama, maintaining more emphasis on Afghanistan than Iraq, may have been able to do more sizable damage to the Taliban in Afghanistan instead of chasing after an ISIS threat his policies created.

In short, Obama has completely undone any work that he accomplished with the killing of Osama Bin Laden, withdrawal from Iraq and focus on Afghanistan. It has all been undone because he believed that Libya and Syria were ready for 'democracy' when Iraq as early as 2003 clearly showed why this is folly.

Obama will go down in history as a President whose efforts in the war on terror were misguided and contradictory. He should have known that the war for democracy must wait until the war on terror is won.

Islamic State threatens both Al-Qaeda and Saudi Arabia

In 2013, when the Islamic State broke off from Al-Qaeda over 'fiqh,' or Islamic jurisprudence, a 'crack' in the universal terror front was formed. Previously all under Osama Bin Laden, Ayman Zawahiri and Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi are now the two faces on the terror front with different goals.

Ayman Zawahiri, the current leader of Al-Qaeda - like Bin Laden before him - has the aim of warring on America through terrorism and provocation, with the ultimate aim of bankrupting America and allowing the Middle-East to be left alone. The Al-Qaeda group sees the defeat of America as a prelude to the defeat of Israel and a slow return to the way things used to be in an Islamic Middle-East.

Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi - the leader of the Islamic State - aims to establish a Caliphate at the earliest possible time, primarily through a process of 'waking up' the Sunni sleeping giant by waging war on the Shi'ites of the Middle-East. Abu Musab Az-Zarqawi, the head of Al-Qaeda in Iraq (2003) was the founder of this ideology.

The differences are stark. Al-Qaeda's first priority is America; the Islamic State's first priority is Shi'ite Muslims and Sunnis in error. Al-Qaeda does not believe in the early return to the Caliphate - the Islamic State does. Al-Qaeda does not always resort to extreme implementations of Shariah law and jihad - the Islamic State does.

Ultimately, the Islamic State threatens both Al-Qaeda and Saudi Arabia. After declaring the Caliphate Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, in a recording, called for Saudis to wage war on their Shi'ite populations and on the Saudi military before striking the Americans and their military bases. The Islamic State has been known to fight Al-Qaeda branch Jabhat An-Nusra (now Jabhat Fateh Ash-Sham) in Syria, through military campaigns and suicide bombings.

With a Trump Administration threatening to stabilize Syria and Iraq, the threat to the legitimacy of both Saudi Arabia and Al-Qaeda is all the more potent. Should Trump succeed in stabilizing these two countries under Iranian-friendly governments, the Islamic State would be able to turn to both Al-Qaeda and Saudi Arabia, point the finger and say, 'see? The Shi'ites control Iraq and Syira because you have not been waging jihad properly!'

The Islamic State is set to cause a regional explosion in Saudi Arabia. Should Syria and Iraq stabilize, the threat would arrive to the conservative kingdom sooner. This is especially true given the direction Mohammed Bin Salman is moving the kingdom in.

With the Islamic State threatening to tear Saudi Arabia from its monarchy, this threatens Al-Qaeda's sway in the region as well. Should the Islamic State control the holy sites of Mecca and Medina, Al-Qaeda's vision for the Middle-East would be shattered. Instead of focusing on Israel and America, the Islamic State would cause Arabs to fight each other and strengthen Israel's standing in the region - some countries previously hostile to Israel would secretly ally with her to protect them from the Islamic State threat.

Should Saudi Arabia continue its aggressive westernization as adopted by Mohammed Bin Salman, I doubt the royal family would survive an Islamic State uprising. Mohammed Bin Salman has made comments about distancing Saudi Arabia from Salafiya - their conservative form of Sunni Islam - but, like a nail in the coffin, has also suggested improving ties with Israel in a more public manner.

Such would lead Mohammed Bin Salman to ruin and potential assassination. There is no way that even a non-Salafi Sunni country can make such outrageous statements about Israel without severe consequences, let alone the son of the custodian of the two holy mosques!

However, Saudi Arabia is faced with another possible solution to their Islamic State problem: an alliance with Al-Qaeda. In the Iraqi-Kuwait war, Osama Bin Laden offered for his Mujahideen to fight in Kuwait against Saddam Hussein's forces, which was refused in favour of the Americans. While this caused enormous damage in relations between Saudi Arabia and Bin Laden, an Islamic State threat to the Gulf could repair relations between Al-Qaeda and Saudi Arabia out of necessity.

An Al-Qaeda-Saudi-Arabia merger would stand a better - but by no means certain - chance of success against the Islamic State. It would certainly stand a better chance than a Saudi Arabia ruled by Mohammed Bin Salman!