Will there be an American strike on the Syrian government?

President Donald Trump, along with Vice President Pence and their national security staff. New York Times. 

President Trump and his staff are debating another strike on the Syrian government in retaliation for a suspected chemical weapons attack. New York Times. Two US destroyers are deployed in the eastern Mediterranean sea and are capable of launching a Tomahawk missile strike, like the one that was deployed a year ago. Another strike is possible and will likely be more expansive than last years strike. Instead of hitting one target once it is possible that multiple targets could be hit or the raid could last more than a day. Airstrikes, like the one Israel recently launched, are unlikely as Syria has decent anti-air defenses and there is not an aircraft carrier staged in the region. 

My Comment:

A more realistic take on possible strikes from the New York Times, surprisingly enough. I think their analysis is correct. If something happens it is not going to be an invasion of Syria or regime change. And it certainly won't be World War III. The media, on both sides of the political spectrum, are going nuts and way over-hyping what this will be, if it even happens. 

Instead it will be much like the last American strikes on the Syrian government. We blew up an airfield, destroyed some aircraft but in the end we didn't really effect Syria's ability to make war. I am guessing if we end up doing anything, and remember nothing is still an option, it's going to be the exact same thing as last time.

My guess is that the T4 airbase, which Israel just bombed, would be a primary target. That airbase seems to be where most of these attacks are coming from and is a major depot for Iranian troops in the region. It's been attacked several times now but it hasn't been taken out of commission. Another large strike, with possible follow up strikes, might take it out of commission for a long time, maybe even permanently. 

There are other possibilities as well. I have heard the northern city of Dier Ez Zor, famously besieged by ISIS for most of the war, might be hit as well. Doing so would make since because that area has been the site of a couple of skirmishes between US forces and the regime and a strike there would discourage the chances of another raid by Syrians and Russian mercenaries. 

What I don't see happening is an attack on the Syrian regime leadership itself. Trump has made it very clear that he doesn't want regime change in Syria and will not move against Assad, even if he has come up with one of his famous nicknames for him. "Animal" Assad doesn't look like he is going anywhere as Trump has said that he doesn't want regime change. 

I also think that there is communication between the United States and Russia. Though neither side is getting along with the other I do think that both sides want to avoid Russian casualties. To that end I am guessing Russia will be given advance warning in order to move their troops to avoid the strike. They will likely warn the Syrians as well but since this attack is about sending a message, not killing large numbers of troops, that is probably just fine with the Trump administration. 

Do I agree with an attack? Not really. I have always said that the best thing for Syria is a regime victory and any attack that reduces their ability to make war is not a good thing. All this strike will do is prolong a war that has already gone on too far and killed way too many people. 

That being said, the chemical weapons attack on Douma was an incredibly stupid move for the Syrian government. They were days away from winning the battle there anyways and attacking with chemical weapons made zero strategic and political sense. Whatever little they gained from attacking Douma is going to be negated by this strike and the Israeli one that already happened. Punishing such stupidity does have a certain appeal to it even if it doesn't help anything.