An AngloZionist attack on Syria appears to be inevitable and imminent. There is always a chance of a major pushback from some putative mentally sane, realistic and patriotic generals in the Pentagon, but I am not holding my breath (I asked two of my best informed friends about that, they both told me to forget about it). Counting on those who have made a life obeying orders to suddenly refuse one, and wreck their career in the process, is naive. Besides, most of what we now have at the Pentagon are not Admiral Fallon types, but rather the same “an ass-kissing little chickenshit” type à la Petraeus. They might not push for a confrontation with Russia, but they will do what they are told to. The commander of CENTCOM recently said just that (“we will do what we are told“).
However, what kind of attack options the US Neocons and their Israeli pals will chose is probably what is being debated right now. Here are the basic options
1) A repeat of last year’s attack on the Syrian Air Force base in Shayrat. That would be by far the best option and that would allow the Neocons a face-saving, even if entirely symbolic, “look how tough we are” option. They might as well strike the same T4 base the Israelis did a few days ago, just with more missiles. And, just to make this look all very “democratic” they might ask the French, Brits or Israelis to participate in that attack.
2) It is too late, militarily speaking, to try to reverse the situation on the ground, but hitting more Syrian Air Force bases, communication nodes, air defenses, etc. is definitely an option. Following such an attack, the US allies on the ground (the “good” and the “bad” terrorists) would go on the offensive and the Syrians and their allies would struggle to “plug the wholes” thus created. That would not fundamentally change the outcome, but would prolong the chaos and associated bloodbath.
3) Attack the Iranians. This is a grand favorite with the Israelis and the Neocons, but it is also a much risker option because if the attack is successful, the Iranians would have a huge number of potential US targets to chose from to retaliate, as would Hezbollah. Still, that would placate the Iran-haters, at least temporarily, and it would allow Trump to show how “tough” and “great” a guy he is.
4) A full scale attack on the Syrian military and on the government (including Presidential facilities). We are talking about hundreds of cruise missiles in the first wave. Targets would include not only purely military targets (ammo dumps, troop concentrations, etc.) but also the “regime support infrastructure”, i.e. civilians and that which makes civilian life possible: power plants, water purification, communications, bridges, roads, ports, schools and hospitals (“camouflaged regime objectives”) etc. Basically, that is what the US/EU/NATO did to Serbia and what the Israelis have done many times to Lebanon: murder as many civilians as possible to make them pay for supporting the “Animal Assad”. A time honored Anglo and Jewish tradition, by the way.
5) A deliberate attack on Russian and Iranian positions in Syria to “punish” them for supporting “Animal Assad’s” chemical attacks.
Of course, a combination of the options above are possible. Roughly speaking options 1, 2 and 3 might (conditional) remain manageable. Only option 1 is (relatively) safe. Options 4 and 5 are absolutely insane and are likely to result in an extremely dangerous escalation.
Let’s look at it from another point of view.
What would be the goal of a AngloZionist attack?
I think that we can all agree that nobody seriously believes that a actual chemical attack took place and that everybody knows that this is a (poorly) staged false flag predicted by both Nikki Haley and the Russians weeks ago. As for a full-scale reversal of the outcome in Syria or a reconquista by US/NATO, these are not militarily speaking realistic options.
So then what is the point?
1) Internal US politics: Trump wants to appease the Neocons and looks “tough”.
2) Make the Syrians, Iranians and Russians pay for defeating the “good” and “bad” terrorists.
3) Appease the always bloodthirsty Israelis and create a nice pretext to renege on the nuclear deal with Iran.
4) The need to act on the rhetoric (that one is often ignored, but the fact is that when a regime spews a constant stream of paranoid and hate-filled nonsense about another country, it eventually has to do something about it. Speaking of “Animal Assad” and do nothing about him just does not look good for The Donald).
5) Some hope to actually kill Assad (unlikely, the integrated Russian-Syrian air defenses will warn him of the attack).
6) Re-establish, by means of example, that the USA is still the biggest and baddest guy out there and that neither Iran nor Russia can do anything about it. Scare Russia and Iran into submission (I know, this is a stupid notion, but Neocons are not very bright!).
I think that we should not over-intellectualize all this. Frankly, I don’t think that the folks in the White House are very bright and that their level of planning is roughly similar to “if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail”. What they have is a mental hammer: the desire to lash out, to strike, to hurt, to punish. Just hatred and infinite arrogance.
As to where and how the hammer will strike – your guess is as good as mine.
Attempting to predict the actions of delusional psychopaths is an exercise in futility.
Besides, we will find out very soon.