Strike or no strike, danger looms in both scenarios
President Donald Trump warnings over possible strikes have begged many questions: how many missiles, for how long, at what targets and to what end. Here are some important facts to consider:
Deepening conflict with Russia, Iran
The more expansive the strike, the greater the risk of accidental casualties that could deepen the conflict with Russia or Iran.
If Trump goes beyond missiles and authorises the use of manned aircraft even from outside Syrian airspace, they face the dangers of a modern air defence system provided by Moscow. And Trump’s Twitter warning, along with the delay in acting, has given the Syrians days to prepare.
The Syrian military had moved some of its key aircraft to a Russian base, assuming the Americans would be reluctant to strike there. Russian commanders have also moved some of their forces in anticipation of US action.“You want to hit the military equipment responsible for carrying out these atrocities,” said Andrew J. Tabler, a Syria scholar at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
“You want to deliver a message and degrade their military capabilities but if you end up killing Russians in the process that risks a confrontation.”
Last Trump strike failed to deter Al Assad
Few doubt the US capacity to inflict damage on Al Assad’s government. But it remains unclear whether the operation envisioned by Trump will be any more meaningful than a cruise missile strike he ordered last year after a similar chemical attack.
That strike hit a Syrian airbase that was up and running again within 24 hours.
“The question then becomes, are we just going to try to add additional costs on Al Assad and hope that it establishes a more effective deterrence?
“Or is Trump going to pursue an effective deterrence that holds not just Al Assad, but his external backers, accountable?” said Jennifer Cafarella, a senior analyst at the Institute for the Study of War.
Some analysts say the chemical attacks will continue unless Russia and Iran suffer consequences for supporting Al Assad’s tactics.
What a more serious strike could look like
If the United States opts for a broader attack, it may choose to conduct initial precision strikes to debilitate ground air defences. It might also decide to combine missiles and stealth aircraft, such as the F-22 fighter jet or B2 bomber, said David Deptula, a retired Air Force lieutenant general who is dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies.
A broader attack could also target command and control nodes, munitions storage sites, or Al Assad’s helicopter fleet, which has been used to deliver barrel bombs and other munitions.
The Pentagon might also take aim at civilian airports, seaports, chemical factories or refineries, all of which are vital to Syria’s already battered economy.
“You want to destroy the vital infrastructure,” Deptula said. “That’s the whole point of a punitive attack.”
Military officials must consider the response from Russia, which has threatened to conduct counter-strikes against the United States and has positioned some of its most advanced weaponry, including the stealth SU-57 fighter, in Syria.