ANTICIPATING THE POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES OF A STRIKE ON SYRIA

A U.S. missile strike on Syria could trigger an explosive chain reaction from Syria or its allies like Hezbollah and Iran, and the blowback could hit U.S./French targets or Israel or Syria might simply stop using chemical weapons and there is no retaliation at all. Gauging the ripple effects of a U.S. strike on Syria is part of the calculations of the Obama administration but it is imprecise science. Any military strike often has ramifications that are not anticipated. We face major uncertainties regarless of what is done.

Here are five scenarios experts say the U.S. could face in coming weeks.

1. Syria will try to retaliate

Syria has already made bold threats toward the U.S. and its allies, specifically, Israel about retaliation for any U.S. intervention in Syria's civil war. If Damascus comes under attack, Tel Aviv will be targeted and a full-scale war against Syria will actually issue a licence for attacking Israel. Iran's Fars News Agency quoted a Syrian military official as saying "If Syria is attacked, Israel will also be set on fire and such an attack will, in turn, engage Syria's neighbors." But U.S. policy experts say that it is unlikely that Assad's military forces have the capabilities to launch another large-scale attack at this point, given how committed their troops already are fighting the rebels within Syria. Any retaliation by Assad's military will largely be small-scale and symbolic, aimed at generating headlines and support rather than hurting U.S. allies or targets. If Syria does something large-scale their reprisal risks could outweigh their gains. In a world where every rocket is massive in terms of media reporting, they could do low level stuff to get a lot of propaganda gains, and do a lot of that without provoking response from the U.S.

2. Iran will take aim at Israel

Iranian leaders have also issued strong rhetoric in recent days, warning the U.S. to stay out of the conflict in Syria and threatening to retaliate against Israel in response to any military meddling. But if Iran launched an attack on Israel, it is unlikely that the U.S. would come to its ally's defence. Iran could try to demonstrate its power by either using elements of the Al Quds Force or sponsoring a third party attack on anything from U.S. targets to Israeli targets to Jordanian targets. Israel will probably manage its own defence. If Iran opts not to strike Israel or Jordan, it could still bolster its support for Assad. Iran and Russia might step up their response, sending more fighters, encouraging more fighters from Iraq and Lebanon, sending more arms, and using more diplomatic pressure.

3. Radical groups could retaliate

Islamic extemist groups and militant groups such as Hezbollah could also plan retaliations against U.S. targets or allies. There is always the possibility that Hezbollah might act out. A lot of the reaction depnds on the specifics of how visible the strike is. Iran's biggest client is Hezbollah, which has problems of its own and is already deeply involved in the Syria's civil war. Iran could encourage them to be more involved, but to what degree? It's unlikely that any major actors in the region will want to entice the U.S. into becoming more involved in Syria. Why rouse a sleeping giant? The U.S. will still be, after this, a country unlikely to become a participant in the conflict, even arming the rebels will be something the U.S. will handle with kid gloves, so why would anybody on Assad's side want to change that?

4. U.S. accused of war crimes

One strategy that Syria could employ to retaliate against the U.S. is to accuse them of war crimes. The broader issue is what happens after the strike? Syria may focus on any collateral damage, real or false, to accuse the U.S. of war crimes and to go to the United Nations with that.

5. No repercussions, U.S. succeeds at deterring the use of chemical weapons

Of all the potential repercussions that could come from a strike, one U.S. expert is convinced that the biggest one will be success. The most likely, and it's alawys important to underscore that you can never count on the most likely, is it's a one-off. It's very clear that President Obama has no more interest than that and President Assad would be foolish to give Obama a reason or justification or necessity for doing more. President Obama is not going to do any more than punish and deter any further chemical use and to reestablish deterrents about weapons of mass destruction issues and behaviour around the world. He will feel he has succeeded if there's not, in fact, a subsequent attack and Iran and North Korea take note. If the U.S. is successful at striking Syria once, the region will be waiting to see to what extent the U.S. does next in the broader context of the Syrian war.

Note: Regardless of whether the U.S. Congress votes to approve the use of force against Syria, the above is premised on President Obama's  taking the decision to take military action (to affirm the U.S. and the world's credibility).