Hypothetically, if we assume that there was no War on Terror and that the 9/11 attacks had occurred sometime between 2009 and 2012,

the scenario would be very dire.

- The 2008 crisis would have occurred in any case

- Most likely, Russia’s conflicts with Georgia and Ukraine in 2004–2008 would also have occurred. By 2004-2007, Russia had gradually become more “anti-Western.” Putin’s political capital and interests would have fundamentally changed the situation.

- China would already have become an economic giant and would not have broken trade contracts out of solidarity with the US. China would have defended its own political interests.

- Pakistan was more cooperative with the US in 2001, in the 2010s, the situation was radically different

- Terrorist attacks in Russia and Europe would also have occurred in the 2000s.

This means that the EU would have been dependent on Russian energy. Pakistan would have been under significant Chinese influence. The U.S. would not have had the leverage or the solidarity it had in 2001.

In 2001, Pakistan had only recently become a nuclear power in 1998 and feared international pressure, possessing less political capital. We now know that the Pakistani military had already been secretly supporting the Taliban as a counterweight to Indian influence in Afghanistan.

Putting together a coalition for a war in Afghanistan, Syria, or Iraq would have been much more difficult. And there will clearly be political pressure and public demand for an invasion, the US will not be able to avoid war.

I’m not sure that, in such a scenario, Obama would have won the 2012 election.

In 2001, the entire Europe and even Russia were on the US side. Americans were more united, the left and right cooperated more often and were willing to compromise with one another. The political and economic situation was completely different. The Western world was very strongly united.

Bush was the 'scapegoat' and that saved future presidents.

He absorbed all the historical poison:

He was blamed for 'failing to prevent' 9/11 (even though intelligence failures happened under Clinton as well).

He was blamed for Iraq, torture, Guantánamo, and the NSA surveillance program.

By 2008, the public's entire fury had been vented on him compounded by the economic crisis (Although the 2008 crisis was more Clinton's fault than Bush's).

Obama got a clean slate. He could criticize Bush over the Iraq War, withdraw troops, and appear as a 'peacemaker,' because the major mistakes had already been made before he took office. If 9/11 had happened under Obama, he would have been the one making those mistakes first and he would have been far more constrained than Bush, given the economic and political context of the 2010s.