Middle East/North Africa 12 - Armageddon Anyone?

[Fez]

Of course I believe he has that kind of control. He's a member of family dynasty, that has been ruling Syria for decades. Do you believe they remained in power without complete control of such important matters?

And you'd be wrong (probably):

Last Wednesday, in the hours after a horrific chemical attack east of Damascus, an official at the Syrian Ministry of Defense exchanged panicked phone calls with a leader of a chemical weapons unit, demanding answers for a nerve agent strike that killed more than 1,000 people. Those conversations were overheard by U.S. intelligence services, The Cable has learned. And that is the major reason why American officials now say they're certain that the attacks were the work of the Bashar al-Assad regime -- and why the U.S. military is likely to attack that regime in a matter of days.

But the intercept raises questions about culpability for the chemical massacre, even as it answers others: Was the attack on Aug. 21 the work of a Syrian officer overstepping his bounds? Or was the strike explicitly directed by senior members of the Assad regime? "It's unclear where control lies," one U.S. intelligence official told The Cable. "Is there just some sort of general blessing to use these things? Or are there explicit orders for each attack?"

Sure doesn't sound like a centralized command structure with Assad authorizing action.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

That is plausible to me considering the Neocon mindset that dominated hawkish US foreign policy during that entire era.

Not remotely plausible to me, though they do contingency plan for a lot of things, and contingency planning for attacks on terrorist bases or countries suspected of harboring WMD's is plausible. What isn't plausible is an actual intent to invade all those countries. And obviously, it didn't happen.

If use of chemical weapons can bring western intervention, then (if I'm Assad) I'll better be pretty sure, that I'm the only one who can approve such attack. Assad is not crazy or stupid, I don't think he leaves such important decisions to his generals, no matter how much he trusts them.

I suspect you're right about it being his intent not to leave that decision to his generals, but unless those munitions would locked up and he had the only key, permission and access are not the same thing. My guess is that those munitions were not all stored in a single centralized location. And I don't think ammo handlers are going to refuse a general's order to dispense those munitions. "Sorry sir, I'll need to hear that from the President himself". There could have been a miscommunication/misunderstanding relating to some order by Assad, a general thinks he's been given permission to use all means necessary in some situation, and so orders up the chems. It's possible.

The second, almost definitely. He was hoping to keep the syrians from doing anything foolish, and now he's more or less forced to back up his threat.

Yeah, I think this is one of those situations where western leaders have kind of agreed that they have to do something, just because they don't think western leaders are supposed to ignore this kind of thing, without really weighing what they expect to actually accomplish.

[a free shadow]

And you'd be wrong(probably):

This amounts to nothing in any discussion at the moment. As well as any other evidence that leaves it "little to no" doubt or "crystal clear" (according to USA, UK officials) that the chemical weapons were used by the regime. Because none of that evidence was made public yet to make any informed opinions.

If there is a phone call and it rests on it, a transcript ought to be published.

Up till today (before the article above came), the only supposed source of evidence cited was US officials supposedly having no doubt the rockets used to launch the attack were exclusively in the possesion of the regime. But before it is detailed to the tiniest detail where the "undoubtedly" and "exulsively" comes from, it amounts to nothing in making your own opinion again.

On Monday it was said that the evidence will be made available for public on Tuseday. Now it is likely moved to Thursday. And while there definitely must be taken as much time as it is needed to piece things together, the idea that the definitive rhetorics were launched before the evidence were put forward, is the wrong thing.

[mcbigski]

Not remotely plausible to me, though they do contingency plan for a lot of things, and contingency planning for attacks on terrorist bases or countries suspected of harboring WMD's is plausible. What isn't plausible is an actual intent to invade all those countries. And obviously, it didn't happen.

Actually, it sounds entirely plausible. A significant portion of the post invasion violence in Iraq was initiated by Iranian proxies. There was all sorts of talk of 'draining the swamp' at the time. Iran does have a fairly large, well educated, wealthy, moderate expat population right, and some domestic opposition to the Ayatollahs. And was it Cheney or Rumsfeld that said something along the lines of 'when a problem seems intractable, you need to expand its scope?'

It might be a simplistic board game view of the map of the middle east that would lead one to invading all of those countries, but if you were to put aside political calculations, and focus only on removing state sponsors of terrorism, there's plausibility in exploring the notion.

[Every]

I think it is clear that gas was used. The question is who used it.

But given Obama's obvious reluctance to get involved here, I doubt America would do so unless they were utterly convinced that it was indeed Asad behind the attack.

I agree with you in part, but I don't necessarily think there would need to be a lot (or indeed any) proof of Assad's involvement for the US and its allies to blame the regime for the attack. Given that the alternative could be admitting to their people that the rebels they've spent millions aiding are responsible for such a huge atrocity, on top of the various other atrocities which they are known to have committed, I suspect Western leaders will be sticking to the 'Assad did it' narrative like glue unless confronted with cast iron evidence to the contrary.

I'm not saying that I think Assad definitely didn't do it, or that the rebels definitely did. I just can't see the logic in the narrative that's being put about, and I have seen no evidence to support the statements made by governments, includng the US' and my own, that assume Assad's regime was responsible. Hopefully more information will come to light soon.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Actually, it sounds entirely plausible. A significant portion of the post invasion violence in Iraq was initiated by Iranian proxies. There was all sorts of talk of 'draining the swamp' at the time. Iran does have a fairly large, well educated, wealthy, moderate expat population right, and some domestic opposition to the Ayatollahs. And was it Cheney or Rumsfeld that said something along the lines of 'when a problem seems intractable, you need to expand its scope?'

I could understand the argument that there was planning for those contingencies, but that's almost meaningless given that the military plans for all sorts of contingencies that never come about. The important thing is whether anyone actually decides to go ahead with it, and nobody did. So it is odd to me to be casting blame for something that was considered at a planning level, but ultimately rejected.

Also, the actual quote from the article was that we were going to "take out" those countries, not "invade" as ThinkerX said. Those words are not synonymous. "Take out", in the context of an anti-terror war, could mean targetted strikes at certain installations, perhaps contingent on the level of support being provided to terrorists. "Invasion" is something a whole lot more involved.

[Galactus]

I could understand the argument that there was planning for those contingencies, but that's almost meaningless given that the military plans for all sorts of contingencies that never come about.

Including invasions by aliens, ghosts and zombies, and the girl scouts turning into a terrorist organization.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Including invasions by aliens, ghosts and zombies, and the girl scouts turning into a terrorist organization.

Well, there's always chuckleheads who come up with shit just to amuse themselves.

[Fez]

This amounts to nothing in any discussion at the moment. As well as any other evidence that leaves it "little to no" doubt or "crystal clear" (according to USA, UK officials) that the chemical weapons were used by the regime. Because none of that evidence was made public yet to make any informed opinions.

If there is a phone call and it rests on it, a transcript ought to be published.

Up till today (before the article above came), the only supposed source of evidence cited was US officials supposedly having no doubt the rockets used to launch the attack were exclusively in the possesion of the regime. But before it is detailed to the tiniest detail where the "undoubtedly" and "exulsively" comes from, it amounts to nothing in making your own opinion again.

On Monday it was said that the evidence will be made available for public on Tuseday. Now it is likely moved to Thursday. And while there definitely must be taken as much time as it is needed to piece things together, the idea that the definitive rhetorics were launched before the evidence were put forward, is the wrong thing.

And that's just your opinion, so stop acting like its a fact that Assad has total control over his regime when all available evidence suggests a complete clusterfuck.*

Including invasions by aliens, ghosts and zombies, and the girl scouts turning into a terrorist organization.

Don't forget Canada! There's still DOD strategies that heavily involve Buffalo, NY as a major strategic asset; although I don't think many of them have been updated since the '30s.

ETA: *Which is another reason why getting rid of him won't help that much. We really shouldn't be getting involved here.

[Galactus]

Well, there's always chuckleheads who come up with shit just to amuse themselves.

Nah, they're basically placeholders, and way to think about stuff that might become a problem. Like "How to defeat and enemy we can't harm physically?" or "How to defeat an enemy with vastly superior technology?" or "How to defeat a large, relatively decentralized organization that enjoys a great deal of public support?"

Don't forget Canada! There's still DOD strategies that heavily involve Buffalo, NY as a major strategic asset; although I don't think many of them have been updated since the '30s.

Ah, good ol' Plan Red. (or was it orange? I know Red-Orange was war with Japan and the UK simultaneously)

[Werthead]

Bush at least asked Congress for approval of "his" war. Obama doesn't bother, like he did in Libya.

True and that point is worth raising, but Congress is not the United Nations, and you were talking specifically about the United Nations. As it stands, I believe the President has the right to undertake military action in the nation's interests for a limited period of time before he has to go to Congress, which is one of the responsibilities of the job.

Except AQ is fighting against Assad. If US really wanted to fight AQ they should back Assad, not oppose him.

This is why the situation is difficult. Syria is no friend of the west's, but then neither is a large chunk of the rebels. Other rebels are, or potentially are. So the situation is that we do nothing, and risk the anti-west faction gaining control of a post-war Syria. Or we do something, and risk pissing off the uncommitted, possibly strengthening the chances of an anti-west faction gaining control. Or we do something and the pro-western, pro-democracy factions win out and Syria, maybe after a teething period, becomes a more moderate country in the Middle East we can do business with (and also remove from the Iranian sphere of influence).

I think the solution everyone is hoping for - we do nothing and the pro-west forces win anyway - is unlikely. For a country less right in the middle of an unstable region, you might be able to say that us sitting on our hands is an acceptable move. For Syria, with the risk of the impact on Iraq, Israel, Turkey and other surrounding countries we have interests in, it seems a much riskier one. Maybe if we had originally declared staying out of it altogether that would still be viable, but we gave up that option when we started arming the rebels, recognising them and calling for Assad to step down.

To make my position clearer, what I was saying was that military intervention should be undertaken to neutralise/destroy the WMDs to stop either side using them again. If you can do this from the air alone, great, but there seems to be high scepticism that this is possible (and given several days of bellicose rhetoric from the west, the Syrians would indeed be idiots if they haven't dispersed their weapons already). In that case the value of air strikes as a deterrant has to be assessed. A relatively modest air campaign in support of the rebels in Libya helped tip the balance of power (and the allied forces weren't exactly carpet-bombing the country at all). Assad has to fear the symbolic valuce of a western air campaign in triggering more defections from his side, emboldening the rebels etc as well. In the case of Assad leaving power and the rebels taking control, then there is an opportunity for peacekeepers to step in and help secure the remaining chemical and biological weapons.

And BTW where's the proof Syrian govt used chemical weapons? Why should they do it? They are winning now, they don't need to use chemical weapons especially such (relatively) small scale use and risk foreign intervention. It is far more likely that if they were used, they were used by rebels.

This is a reasonable question. But again it fails to address the point that the Assad regime may have lost control of the military or rebels may have seized the weapons themselves, indicating that the government has lost control of their WMD stocks. In either situation, securing or destroying the weapons has to be a priority. As for form, the Syrian government has used coventional weapons to fire into civilian areas before, so their willingness to kill civilians is absolutely clear.

Unconfirmed sources are in fact saying now that Syrian air force intelligence gave orders for the chemical attack - and even handed out the weapons pre-loaded - without the knowledge or approval of the army or government. This may either be a blunder, or the first sign of Assad losing control of his regime.

I see. You get to decide it, because your opinion amounts to a fact. From your perspective, at least.

Al-Qaeda (or an independent terrorist organisation claiming to be al-Qaeda but even if it isn't, shares its goals and values) is in Syria. Do you dispute this?

Al-Qaeda is an enemy of the United States and her allies. Fact. You may have not noticed a gaping hole in New York that was there for a few years to prove this. Do you dispute this?

Syria has WMDs. They have just be used, by someone. Do you dispute this?

Either 1) the government has used WMDS, or 2) they no longer have control of them and other forces (rebel, military or whatever) can use them. Is this not a logical conclusion?

Conclusion: al-Qaeda is in operation in a country with WMDs, potentially unsecured ones no longer fully under the control of the government. Does this not worry you? Do you not think there is a real risk this could come back and bite the USA or its allies in the region further down the line?

I disagree with the premise of that, but also, it's irrelevant.

The United States and UK went to war in Iraq, triggered the collapse of the state and (albeit unintentionally) killed or allowed to be killed the better part of a million people because of WMDs, even though there was zero evidence they were there beforehand (the fabled dossier was so blatantly packed full of bullshit directly contradicted by the UN personnel on the ground, it's astonishing it wasn't laughed out of the assembly) and so it was unambiguously proven afterwards. Maybe the conspiracy nuts are right and the USA really went in after oil, or so GWB could make daddy proud, but that certainly was not the reason given publicly.

The United States's policy seems to be that WMDs cannot be allowed to spread beyond those countries that already have them for fear of them being used, or falling into the hands of those who would use them. That is the exact reason why the USA is currently engaged in extremely harsh containment policies against both North Korea and Iran (resulting in the near-collapse of the economies of both countries). The USA shrugging its head and saying that the factions in Syria should be allowed to get on doing what they like with WMDs (regardless of affiliation) is not only inconsistent with past actions, but their present policies against other countries.

[a free shadow]

And that's just your opinion, so stop acting like its a fact that Assad has total control over his regime when all available evidence suggests a complete clusterfuck.*

I made no assumptions in my post. Only stated my reluctace to do so, while the only basis for that so far is rhetorics and play with the adjectives on the part of USA, UK, France. "The phone call" is not any basis to claim anything, until you know word by word what was said on that phone call.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

True and that point is worth raising, but Congress is not the United Nations, and you were talking specifically about the United Nations.

But at least Bush (and Blair, etc..) could claim to be enforcing the terms of a ceasefire for a military action previously authorized by the U.N.. What's the argument as it relates to the U.N. and Syria? I mean, I'm about the last guy to take the U.N. seriously, but since this President and Veep both did while they were Senators, it is a fair question to ask of them.

To make my position clearer, what I was saying was that military intervention should be undertaken to neutralise/destroy the WMDs to stop either side using them again. If you can do this from the air alone, great, but there seems to be high scepticism that this is possible (and given several days of bellicose rhetoric from the west, the Syrians would indeed be idiots if they haven't dispersed their weapons already). In that case the value of air strikes as a deterrant has to be assessed. A relatively modest air campaign in support of the rebels in Libya helped tip the balance of power (and the allied forces weren't exactly carpet-bombing the country at all). Assad has to fear the symbolic valuce of a western air campaign in triggering more defections from his side, emboldening the rebels etc as well.

That's a whole lot of "ifs", "buts" and wishful thinking.

In the case of Assad leaving power and the rebels taking control, then there is an opportunity for peacekeepers to step in and help secure the remaining chemical and biological weapons.

And you could just as easily argue that once the regime collapses, those already dispersed weapons will be located and moved by the various factions long before U.N. peacekeepers could get to them. Not to mention that puts U.N. peacekeepers in a situation where firefights with various factions become a significant risk.

This is a reasonable question. But again it fails to address the point that the Assad regime may have lost control of the military or rebels may have seized the weapons themselves, indicating that the government has lost control of their WMD stocks. In either situation, securing or destroying the weapons has to be a priority.

I'd suggest that in either case, it is too late, and allied bombing won't make a bit of difference. May actually make things worse.

Al-Qaeda (or an independent terrorist organisation claiming to be al-Qaeda but even if it isn't, shares its goals and values) is in Syria. Do you dispute this?

No.

Al-Qaeda is an enemy of the United States and her allies. Fact. You may have not noticed a gaping hole in New York that was there for a few years to prove this. Do you dispute this?

No.

Syria has WMDs. They have just be used, by someone. Do you dispute this?

No.

Either 1) the government has used WMDS, or 2) they no longer have control of them and other forces (rebel, military or whatever) can use them. Is this not a logical conclusion?

Er....your syntax is sufficiently f'ed up that I don't know whether to say "yes" or "no". So I'll just say "it is a logical conclusion."

Conclusion: al-Qaeda is in operation in a country with WMDs, potentially unsecured ones no longer fully under the control of the government. Does this not worry you? Do you not think there is a real risk this could come back and bite the USA or its allies in the region further down the line?

That's not a policy conclusion -- that's just a summary of the problem. Completely missing is how these airstrikes -- which the President has said are going to be short and not for the purpose of regime change -- materially change those risks at all. As I see it, we are proposing bombing the people who are fighting Al Qaeda. Correct?

So excuse me if the logic of assisting AQ escapes me.

The United States went to war in Iraq, triggered the collapse of the state and (albeit unintentionally) killed or allowed to be killed the better part of a million people because of WMDs, even though there was zero evidence they were there beforehand and so it was unambiguously proven afterwards.

It's annoying to discuss things with people who insist on pulling in ancillary issues, while also insisting on including as fact issues that are clearly disputed. But if you want to go down the rabbit hole....To me, communications intercepts among Iraqi miltary regarding chemical weapons, and Saddam telling other Arab leaders that he did have chemical weapons but was lying about it are evidence that he had them. Such things are not conclusive evidence, but they are certainly evidence of the type that we'd have been accused of "ignoring evidence" if we'd have assumed he didn't have them, and it turned out that he did.

In any case, I'd point out that one stated purpose of invading Iraq was to seize whatever WMD's existed, and to prevent their further production. And that is something that an invasion is theoretically capable of accomplishing. But this idea of limited (or even unlimited) airstrikes, without a major committment of ground troops in Syria (and the corresponding extended occupation, problems with Russia and China, etc..) is not something reasonably calculated to solve the problem you have identified. It is doing "something" just because "something" should be done.

The United States's policy seems to be that WMDs cannot be allowed to spread beyond those countries that already have them for fear of them being used, or falling into the hands of those who would use them. That is the exact reason why the USA is currently engaged in extremely harsh containment policies against both North Korea and Iran (resulting in the near-collapse of the economies of both countries). The USA shrugging its head and saying that the factions in Syria should be allowed to get on doing what they like with WMDs (regardless of affiliation) is not only inconsistent with past actions, but their present political policies against other countries.

We haven't invaded North Korea. We didn't invade Iran despite protests against that government. And we didn't invade Pakistan despite knowledge that their nuclear technology was leaking all over the place. And what has been proposed here is not even an invasion. It's just bombing that does 1) nothing to secure those weapons, and 2) makes an AQ victory more likely.

In fact, your justification for this and the stated justification of the U.S. government are completely different. You are arguing that the motive is to secure such weapons from spreading elsewhere. But we're acting just because they used them. In fact, it would seem that if our goal truly is to ensure that those weapons don't spread, we should be trying to stabilize Assad's government.

Here's my theory. Assad did not order that chemical attack. But as a result of that attack, he is more likely to consolidate his WMD stockpiles so as to maintain much tighter control. If shit really starts to go south for him, he'll likely use those as a bargaining chip for safe passage to Iran or something. At that point, with permission, and without the accusation that we are interfering in that war, we can send in personnel for the limited purpose of seizing those stockpiles.

I think that's a much more intelligent course of action than just dropping a bunch of bombs, or even a fullscale invasion, which is something I don't think anyone has the stomach for anyway. But hey, if you think the British people would support sending a bunch of Tommies to go fight Assad, have at it!

[Every]

So this is the extent of the publicly available basis for the assertion that Assad's regime was behind the attacks that I've been able to find (alongside this supposed overheard phone call, but I'll hold judgement on that until there's more information about whether it actually happened and what exactly was said):

As the Obama administration considers how to respond to the use of chemical weapons in Syria, Vice President Joe Biden said Tuesday that there is "no doubt" that Syrian President Bashar al Assad was responsible for the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack near Damascus.

Speaking at the American Legion National convention in Houston, Texas, the vice president laid out the rationale behind that assertion.

"We know that the Syrian regime are the only ones who have the weapons," Biden said, "have used chemical weapons multiple times in the past, have the means of delivering those weapons, have been determined to wipe out exactly the places that were attacked by chemical weapons."

http://www.cbsnews.c...weapons-attack/

Obviously that's just full of holes. How do we know, definitively, that the regime are the only actors in this incredibly complex and chaotic international conflict with access to chemical weapons? Just because they have used chemical weapons in the past, and because they may have been capable of doing it this time, doesn't mean that they did. Just because some of the people in the area attacked were targets doesn't mean that they and they alone had motive to do it; some of the people in the area attacked were also targets for the rebels. There's nothing of substance there at all.

[Tears of Lys]

Is there a smiley icon for crazytalk?

Generally we use :bs:

I think the last question is entirely reasonable. It seems to me the entity which 'benefits' the most from the use of chemical weapons would be the resistance. If you really want to go all tin-foil hat, one could speculate that they got a hold of some actual Assad military chemical agent and did it themselves to draw the western countries in.

I really wish Obama hadn't pulled his pecker out for measurement with the 'Red Line' statement. Now he's damned if he intervenes and damned if he doesn't. I saw the MSNBC story that attacks could happen as early as Thursday on a Greek site. My thought was, here we go again. (The no-fly zone over Iraq was in place for around a decade prior to Gulf War II, to what avail?)

I know. Whatever happened to "speak softly, but carry a big stick"?

(Never mind the obvious penis references. :P)

[snake]

Thinker X,

You should change the heading from "Armageddon Anyone" to "Send in the Clowns!!" lol

Once Assad's forces started beating back the rebels and it looked like he was going to remain in power this intervention was just a matter of time.

The war hawks are smiling now!! lmao

[scotcat]

Whatever we do, it won't end well.

If we do nothing, people will keep dying. If we get involved in a military way, who says getting rid of Assad will make things better? Are we trading the devil we do know for the devil we don't? More to the point is there concrete proof that Assad was behind the chemical attacks? Has it been the rebels? Both sides are calling foul on the other right now.

Does anyone want another 'weapons of mass destruction' fiasco once again?

[snake]

I think it's pretty telling when Ban Ki-Moon is asking western nations to give peace a chance. They must be really chomping at the bit. lol

[Galactus]

Syria is doing the obvious:

Syria asks UN to immediately investigate three new ‘chemical attacks’ by rebels

Published time: August 28, 2013 16:18

Edited time: August 28, 2013 17:31

Get short URL

Reuters/Abo Alnour Alhaji

Share on tumblr

The Syrian government is demanding that the United Nations immediately investigate three alleged chemical attacks carried out by rebel groups on the outskirts of Damascus last week, Syria’s envoy to the UN said.

Ambassador Bashar Jaafari said he had requested UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon that the team of experts currently in Damascus investigating an alleged use of chemical weapons last week also investigate these other attacks.

The attacks took place on August 22, 24 and 25 in Jobar, Sahnaya, and al-Bahariya, Bashar Jaafari told journalists Wednesday. The “militants” used toxic chemical gas against the Syrian army, the diplomat said.

"We are asking UN to incorporate 3 more locations where the Syrian soldiers inhaled the nerve gas also in the suburbs of Damascus. So the spectrum of investigation is increasing compared to the initial phase of investigation," Jaafari said.

Jaafari spoke shortly after an informal meeting of the UN Security Council, where its five permanent members discussed the UK’s proposed draft resolution. The text blames Assad’s government for an alleged chemical attack on August 21, and demands a swift response.

“There is no consensus in the Council on any draft of the resolution, whether it is British or French or American... because members of the Council do not believe the authenticity of the accusations provided by this delegation or that delegation,” the Syrian diplomat said.

Jaafari also accused the US, UK and France of being “part of the problem,” rather than “a solution to the crisis.” These Western states are providing “armed terrorists groups” in Syria with weapons and all kinds of logistical support, he stated.

Following the alleged chemical weapons attack on March 19 in Khan al-Assal near Aleppo, which killed over 30 people, the Syrian government asked the UN chief for assistance in investigating the attack and identifying who was behind it, Jaafari said.

But Ban Ki-moon, “his experts in the department of disarmament, as well as the three Western delegations in the Council, objected to the second part of our request,” he said. “They objected to our request to identify who did it from day one, because they knew who did it in Khan al-Assal.”

The diplomat said that, even though “everyone agreed” that the March 19 attack involved chemical weapons, the UK, the US and France did not submit any draft resolutions to the UN Security Council then.

“They did not raise a finger in the media to say that what happened in Khan al-Assal was wrong,” Jaafari said.

[jarl the climber]

I think that from the Syrian point of veiw the US is all ready intervening.

The Jordanain border is about 100 miles from Damascus. There is little doubt in my mind that the US and other nations in the region who support the rebels are training and arming them and they are crossing the border into Syria. That Jordan is a safe haven where they can regroup and not be attacked by the Syrian armed forces. This is a relatively new reality in the civil war but it does imperil the regimes hold on Damascus in the long run. So the chemical attack was a signal that the Assad regime will use these weapons to hold the capitol.

Of course if the Western powers decide to intervene over this they might be able to tolerate it if opens up the possibility of them being able to retaliate in N. Jordan where these forces are organising and being trained. These forces are more of a threat than some cruise missles being lobbed at them. Also the Syrian regime also has the support of just not the Russians but of the Iranians, Hezbollah and the Shites of Iraq, the later two of which are going through secatarian violence of their own which is related to the situation in Syria. I do not think the Syrians are making an empty threat when they say Western intervention could start a wider war.

The fall of the Assad regime would be an existential crisis for Hezbollah. It would encourage the Sunni insurgency in Iraq and give it a powerful ally next door. It would be a deathblow to Iranian influence. So how far are these allies of Syria willing to go to keep this from happening?