Hey Sherman, it's good to see you posting here. I remember you have some professional insight into these questions, so your opinion is very helpful.
I'd like to ask you: What is your general take on the entire situation? What's the goal of a possible Western attack on Syria?
Based on some mainstream news information I read and watched today, it was suggested that Obama's main goal is to appease the hawks at home who claim he has "no balls". The US already communicated it would be a very limited mission, only lasting two or three days, which is a signal towards Assad and Russia that the US do not really want to topple Assad's regime. Ideally, the attack would serve the purpose of raising the threshhold for using chemical weapons for dictators in the region, and force Assad and the Syrian opposition at the negotiation table. Regime change is not the goal.
Some experts also said that despite the sabor rattling, an escalation beyond Syrian borders is unlikely, because as long as Assad believes he can survive the short attacks politically, he will not likely further endanger his grip on power by provoking a response to possible attack on Syria or Turkey. He'd only do that if he felt the objective was toppling him.
What do you think about this estimation, and what do you think will and can Russia do about it, or what does Russia even want? What will Iran's role be?
Hey there German you do me too many favors but I'll give you my brief opinion.
My personal take is that any action over Syria will end up being relatively limited. By limited I mean a strike that hits a few of the artillery formations believed to have been responsible for the shelling, striking several storage depots and laboratories, a few air fields, some brigade or divisional command and control nodes, and maybe some elements of their air defense grid. Think something along the lines of Desert Fox but more punitive than goal oriented.
The opportunity for a broader attack has passed I think. In the initial days after the bombardment the US and her allies were much more bellicose (or at least her allies were) and the possibility of rapid successful action overriding opposition was more feasible. If you had launched a retaliatory bombardment within 72 hours of the attack the opportunity for UN, Congressional, Parliamentary, etc opposition to coalesce would have been much diminished. The media storm would have provided ample cover and success would be the only justification needed. Moreover it's easier to avoid censure for something already done than to seek support for something yet to occur.
I'm not seer and I could be completely wrong but I'd be surprised if this reaction went further than that and quite frankly if the President wanted it to.
Though to hit on one point an attack over two or three days would be towards the farther end of the punitive spectrum and is (from what I've heard) more or less what the rebels are asking for as their maximal realistic objective. The reason being that once the United States begins bombing Syria it will freeze the board. Moving units, aircraft, helicopters, or the like will be a dangerous thing to do as the attacks will not only sow deep uncertainty but force the regime to avoid further provocations. The rebels would like to capitalize on this by seizing local initiative in Syria and regaining some ground that the government cannot easily retake.
As for attacks beyond Syria's borders? I think it depends entirely on the level of the US response. If it is something analogous to Desert Fox I think Assad will let it lie. So far he's proven to be very adept at reading the international situation and seeing what he can and cannot get away with to avoid serious consequences. He's endured two years of civil war and battles, assassination attempts, and battles outside his front door. I'm not sure why he'd throw that away because a few pieces of infrastructure were destroyed and a few hundred Syrian troops were killed. An attack on Israel, an attack on Jordan, an attack on Turkey, hell even an attack on the US (and allies) fleet would likely invite truly devastating consequences.
The other factor is that Damascus does not want it's soldiers to think that it can lose the war. If it becomes clear that prolonged Western involvement is inevitable it would be disastrous for morale. Because prolonged Western involvement means the regime will likely lose. How many soldiers are willing to die for a regime that is doomed? Mass defection and rebellion becomes a serious concern in that scenario.
IMHO Assad wants to take his punches and be on his way. Though if posturing can avoid the punches that's best of all of course.
As for Russia? They will try and find ways to insert themselves into the region and possibly elsewhere in the world where they think they can gain a political edge to punish the West. Unfortunately for Russia it's ability to do this is much diminished. Probably something to do with Iran, Georgia, or maybe Egypt if the rift with Washington grows.
