"THEY" are going to attack...........

[Southernguy]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

I think this is the 'wars and rumours of war' in Matthew 24:6-8 (KJV)

⁶ And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
⁷ For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
⁸ All these are the beginning of sorrows.

So really, it's just another regional war...I hope Our Glorious President can stick to his peaceful ideas, and keep us out of the mess! We don't NEED any more sorrows just now!

They don't give you Nobel peace prizes if you don't begin a couple of wars these days..
Is It possible to get yet another?

[ASH]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

a war with Russia leading to nukes.

I saw this today:

After journalists repeatedly asked [Russian Foreign Minister] Lavrov how Russia would react to the possible Western intervention he also said: "We (Russia) do not intend to fight with anyone."

The Russians won't fight over Syria because they don't have any existential interests tied up there. Russia hasn't really developed or maintained the capability to fight an expeditionary war on the far side of an intervening NATO country (Turkey), so their options in Syria are either to play spoiler (by exporting advanced anti-air weapons) or to end the world by using their nuclear arms, with few intermediate options. The Russians won't end the world unless faced with an immediate existential threat, since ending the world assuredly ends them, whereas anything short of immediate annihilation offers at the least the chance of a better outcome... and nothing in Syria rises to the level of an immediate threat to Russian survival. In contrast, America has several options for conflict intensity between the extremes of providing arms to proxies versus Armageddon, and that has enabled past wars of choice. It seems to me that the bar for America to wage expeditionary war outside Russian soil is a lot lower than that for Russia to oppose it, because we've maintained the force structure, hardware and bases/allies required to do so without endangering our own national survival. That's why the US is such a promiscuous hegemon.

The points which seem key to me are:

(*) The US military, in the form of JCS Chairman General Dempsey, has repeatedly advised against intervention in Syria, because there is no viable partner there who could advance US interests if Assad's regime falls -- and plenty of opportunity for enemies of the US to thrive in the ensuing chaos. Also, the military options other than standoff bombardment all looked resource-intensive (lots of men and materiel), risky (of politically unsustainable losses), and ultimately unlikely to succeed in securing all of Assad's chemical stockpile. More likely intervention causes the regime to collapse and those weapons to spread to jihadist groups.

(*) Obama himself is highly reluctant to intervene because of the poor prospects for achieving anything beneficial to US interests, the diversion of resources from other more fruitful priorities, and the general lack of public support (which is running at ~9% in favor of intervention).

(*) Intervention would be driven by the (limited) objective of upholding international norms (the taboo against chemical weapons use) and the deterrence value of American threats (having established a "red line" and invoking the phrase "core interests", failure to follow through would undermine the credibility of any future threats).

(*) No good options + no enthusiasm + limited objectives = limited intervention (i.e. what is the minimum amount of force that can be applied to uphold international norms and American credibility)

(*) Since there's no partner in Syria who can advance American interests if Assad's regime goes, I speculate we'll try to calibrate the intervention so that Assad personally has to leave but the regime does not collapse -- and then push for a negotiated settlement between regime and rebels. The wish would be that the regime retains custody of Assad's chemical stockpile and Assad's departure is enough to make some sort of peace possible. None of this may actually be possible, but I would guess that's the best case that could be wished for; what we actually get could be a lot worse.

I think Fred Kaplan's take makes the most sense of those I've read. There are some superficial similarities to the intervention in Kosovo.

[c1ue]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

All this has the earmarks of a 'leave with victory' type setup or a 'salvage negotiations' counteroffensive.

I agree Russia has no interest in committing Russian lives and treasure to defend Syria, but it is untrue that Russia has no direct interests.

For one thing, so long as Syria is sucking in all the Salafists from all over North Africa, the Middle East, and the Caucasus, this brings relative peace to the areas they leave behind.

For another thing, Russia has strong energy related interests which would certainly be threatened should the Assad regime fall.

Equally interesting is how little mention is made of Iran.

[touchring]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

I think Fred Kaplan's take makes the most sense of those I've read. There are some superficial similarities to the intervention in Kosovo.

But there are no heart eating al qaeda in Kosovo?

[GRG55]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

...Equally interesting is how little mention is made of Iran.

Bingo!

Syria is the one place where Qatar and Saudi Arabia are "backing the same side"...unlike Egypt to mention one other recent example. Syria is where are all the pieces on the chess board line up to try to execute a blocking move on Iranian influence in the Arab world. Saudi lost patience and broke with the USA when it intervened militarily in Bahrain in March, 2011. After the Iraq debacle, Saudi wasn't going to take any chances on its eastern doorstep. Syria is their next opportunity to try to draw a line.

Syria has something for everybody...the Gulf Arabs, Russia, USA, Israel, Turkey, the EU and maybe even China. Looks like game on...

[Forrest]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

They don't give you Nobel peace prizes if you don't begin a couple of wars these days..
Is It possible to get yet another?

I don't know if being ready with a trigger finger on a bunch of drones and missile is enough to qualify him for a second Nobel peace prize, but I could be wrong. It's not as if he shut down Afghanistan, so as to focus on really peaceful pursuits from a safe distance. Perhaps he could send in some seals, and take down Assad?

[think365]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

Bingo!

Syria is the one place where Qatar and Saudi Arabia are "backing the same side"...unlike Egypt to mention one other recent example. Syria is where are all the pieces on the chess board line up to try to execute a blocking move on Iranian influence in the Arab world. Saudi lost patience and broke with the USA when it intervened militarily in Bahrain in March, 2011. After the Iraq debacle, Saudi wasn't going to take any chances on its eastern doorstep. Syria is their next opportunity to try to draw a line.

Syria has something for everybody...the Gulf Arabs, Russia, USA, Israel, Turkey, the EU and maybe even China. Looks like game on...

Agreed. It looks like a regional proxy war developing with a complexity of interests at play, with Iran being the 800 lb guerrilla (silently) in the room as far as the U.S. is concerned. The WSJ article below discusses this.

• CAPITAL JOURNAL
• Updated August 26, 2013, 5:18 p.m. ET

Why Obama Is Being Pulled Into Syrian Conflict

The Most Important Reason Can Be Summarized in One Word: Iran

• By
• GERALD F. SEIB

-




President Barack Obama stands on the verge of a military commitment to Syria. The reasons the situation has come to this are many and varied, but the most important one can be summed up in one word: Iran. Jerry Seib explains on the News Hub. Photo: AP.



After two years of trying hard to avoid involvement in a conflict that he fears could easily become a long-term quagmire, that has little popular appeal at home, and that his own Pentagon chiefs have essentially called a losing proposition, President Barack Obama stands on the edge of a military commitment in Syria.

The reasons the situation has come to this are many and varied, but the most complex one can be summarized in one word: Iran. As the force behind the Syrian regime, Iran is the country most responsible for fueling the regime's fight, and the nation whose influence will be most enhanced if President Bashar al-Assad prevails.

Of more immediate concern, Iran also is the country with a dangerous nuclear program, and therefore the one most prone to draw the wrong conclusions if Syria's alleged use last week of its own weapon of mass destruction—chemical arms—stands unchallenged.

The Iran factor, in short, is the elephant in the room, creating an exquisite dilemma for a president who might otherwise find plenty of good reasons to keep his distance.

The Syrian fight and the killing and displacement of civilians it has wrought present big humanitarian concerns, as did the conflict in Rwanda in the 1990s. Syria's fight also presents big worries about who holds the balance of power in an important region, as did the conflict in Kosovo in the same decade. In Rwanda, the concerns didn't prompt U.S. military involvement; in Kosovo, they did, in the form of a 77-day NATO air campaign.

But largely because of Iran's role, Syria's conflict falls into a different category, one in which America's global interests are engaged. Syria has become essentially a proxy war pitting an Iranian-led axis—Iran, President Assad and their allies in the Hezbollah movement—against virtually everybody else in the Middle East.

What now makes it a broader question is the move of weapons of mass destruction to the center of the conflict. Monday's declaration by Secretary of State John Kerry that the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons against its own people is "undeniable" will make it harder to avoid at least the perception of linkage to the even more serious struggle to contain Iran's nuclear program.

Mr. Obama has said it wouldn't be acceptable for Syria to use chemical weapons, just as he has said it wouldn't be acceptable for Iran to develop nuclear weapons. He now must ponder whether the credibility of the first statement will affect the credibility of the second. That question burns particularly hot as the administration considers entering nuclear talks with the government of Iran's new president, Hasan Rouhani, even as Iran continues to deny it has nuclear-arms ambitions.

At the same time, if American force ultimately helps oust Mr. Assad, that outcome might merely increase Iran's sense of isolation and fuel its desire for a nuclear weapon as a kind of security blanket.

All those considerations will be cranked into American decision-making on whether to launch a cruise missile strike against Syrian targets. Such a strike would be limited, designed to make the point that chemical weapons use comes at a price, rather than aimed to magically turn the military tide against Mr. Assad. Still, even a limited action would involve considerable short-term and long-run risks.

In a letter sent a few days ago to Democratic Rep. Eliot Engel of New York, who had asked for an analysis of military options in Syria, Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, bluntly analyzed the effects of military action. He said that while the U.S. has the ability to knock out Syrian air power with limited strikes, such a move would do little to clean up the Syrian mess.

"It is a deeply rooted, long-term conflict among multiple factions, and violent struggles for power will continue after Assad's rule ends," he wrote. "We should evaluate the effectiveness of limited military options in this context."

Any action would carry immediate risks. Tensions with Russia, Syria's other big benefactor, would rise instantly. The chances of terrorism directed by Syria's allies against American targets would increase. Any military escalation carries the danger of expanding the war around the region.

Similarly, the long-term risks that have persuaded Mr. Obama to try to stay on the sidelines are no less real now than before. The president's biggest concerns have been twofold: First, when the U.S. gets involved in such a conflict, it would be expected to inject enough force to prevail. It's hard for a superpower to get involved halfway in any conflict. Again, the question of credibility would arise.

Second, once the U.S. wades in, it's more likely than any other country to own the mess that would follow a victory—defined here as the downfall of President Assad's regime. The forces trying to take his place include many unappetizing Islamists who share few other interests with the U.S.

Sorting through the rubble could take years.

[Mega]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

Saudis offer Russia secret oil deal if it drops Syria

Saudi Arabia has secretly offered Russia a sweeping deal to control the global oil market and safeguard Russia’s gas contracts, if the Kremlin backs away from the Assad regime in Syria.

OPEC raised production by 400,000 barrels per day to 29.7m Photo: AP









By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

8:30PM BST 26 Aug 2013


The revelations come amid high tension in the Middle East, with US, British, and French warship poised for missile strikes in Syria. Iran has threatened to retaliate.


The strategic jitters pushed Brent crude prices to a five-month high of $112 a barrel. “We are only one incident away from a serious oil spike. The market is a lot tighter than people think,” said Chris Skrebowski, editor of Petroleum Review.

Leaked transcripts of a closed-door meeting between Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan shed an extraordinary light on the hard-nosed Realpolitik of the two sides.


Prince Bandar, head of Saudi intelligence, allegedly confronted the Kremlin with a mix of inducements and threats in a bid to break the deadlock over Syria. “Let us examine how to put together a unified Russian-Saudi strategy on the subject of oil. The aim is to agree on the price of oil and production quantities that keep the price stable in global oil markets,” he said at the four-hour meeting with Mr Putin.

They met at Mr Putin’s dacha outside Moscow three weeks ago.


“We understand Russia’s great interest in the oil and gas in the Mediterranean from Israel to Cyprus. And we understand the importance of the Russian gas pipeline to Europe. We are not interested in competing with that. We can cooperate in this area,” he said, purporting to speak with the full backing of the US.

Related Articles

• Russia warns West over 'illegal' Syria intervention
  26 Aug 2013
• Russia 'astonished' by 'illegal' Western war plans
  26 Aug 2013
• Egypt unrest pushes oil price above $111
  15 Aug 2013
• Hague refuses to rule out bombing Syria
  26 Aug 2013
• Sponsored 4G: do believe the hype – there's a superfast difference

The talks appear to offer an alliance between the OPEC cartel and Russia, which together produce over 40m barrels a day of oil, 45pc of global output. Such a move would alter the strategic landscape.

The details of the talks were first leaked to the Russian press. A more detailed version has since appeared in the Lebanese newspaper As-Safir, which has Hezbollah links and is hostile to the Saudis.

As-Safir said Prince Bandar pledged to safeguard Russia’s naval base in Syria if the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord. “I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us,” he allegedly said.

Prince Bandar went on to say that Chechens operating in Syria were a pressure tool that could be switched on an off. “These groups do not scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role in Syria’s political future.”

President Putin has long been pushing for a global gas cartel, issuing the `Moscow Declaration’ last to month “defend suppliers and resist unfair pressure”. This would entail beefing up the Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF), a talking shop.

Mr Skrebowski said it is unclear what the Saudis can really offer the Russians on gas, beyond using leverage over Qatar and others to cut output of liquefied natural gas (LGN). “The Qataris are not going to obey Saudi orders,” he said.
Saudi Arabia could help boost oil prices by restricting its own supply. This would be a shot in the arm for Russia, which is near recession and relies on an oil price near $100 to fund the budget.

But it would be a dangerous strategy for the Saudis if it pushed prices to levels that endangered the world’s fragile economic recovery. Crude oil stocks in the US have already fallen sharply this year. Goldman Sachs said the “surplus cushion” in global stocks built up since 2008 has been completely eliminated.

Mr Skrebowski said trouble is brewing in a string of key supply states. “Libya is reverting to war lordism. Nigerian is drifting into a bandit state with steady loss of output. And Iraq is going back to the sort of Sunni-Shia civil war we saw in 2006-2007,” he said.

The Putin-Bandar meeting was stormy, replete with warnings of a “dramatic turn” in Syria. Mr Putin was unmoved by the Saudi offer, though western pressure has escalated since then. “Our stance on Assad will never change. We believe that the Syrian regime is the best speaker on behalf of the Syrian people, and not those liver eaters,” he said, referring to footage showing a Jihadist rebel eating the heart and liver of a Syrian soldier.

Prince Bandar in turn warned that there can be “no escape from the military option” if Russia declines the olive branch. Events are unfolding exactly as he foretold.

[shiny!]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

Bingo!

Syria is the one place where Qatar and Saudi Arabia are "backing the same side"...unlike Egypt to mention one other recent example. Syria is where are all the pieces on the chess board line up to try to execute a blocking move on Iranian influence in the Arab world. Saudi lost patience and broke with the USA when it intervened militarily in Bahrain in March, 2011. After the Iraq debacle, Saudi wasn't going to take any chances on its eastern doorstep. Syria is their next opportunity to try to draw a line.

Syria has something for everybody...the Gulf Arabs, Russia, USA, Israel, Turkey, the EU and maybe even China. Looks like game on...

I know it's far more complex than this, but it seems like the royal family of Saud with all their billions if not trillions of $$$, is drawing a line using our military at our expense, while defense expenditures from endless wars bankrupt our country. Right? If I'm wrong, I'm sure you will correct me ;-)

[ASH]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

Bingo!

Syria is the one place where Qatar and Saudi Arabia are "backing the same side"...unlike Egypt to mention one other recent example. Syria is where are all the pieces on the chess board line up to try to execute a blocking move on Iranian influence in the Arab world. Saudi lost patience and broke with the USA when it intervened militarily in Bahrain in March, 2011. After the Iraq debacle, Saudi wasn't going to take any chances on its eastern doorstep. Syria is their next opportunity to try to draw a line.

Syria has something for everybody...the Gulf Arabs, Russia, USA, Israel, Turkey, the EU and maybe even China. Looks like game on...

Agreed. It looks like a regional proxy war developing with a complexity of interests at play, with Iran being the 800 lb guerrilla (silently) in the room as far as the U.S. is concerned. The WSJ article below discusses this.

Very salient points. My read is that America's leadership doesn't believe they have a proxy who could replace Assad's regime in Syria, or any prospects for getting a suitable proxy, which is why their strategic aims are very limited. There's a neocon wet dream about breaking up the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah alliance, taking pressure off Israel, and blunting the spread of Iran's regional influence, but neither the administration nor the pentagon thinks the US can make that happen, given the pieces on the board and 9% of the public in favor of intervention. I believe the Gulf Arabs are much keener to have a go -- probably because they like the selection of potential proxies better, and perhaps because the prospect of protracted chaos in Syria is of less concern to them than it is to the US.

[flintlock]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

I have very little confidence that Assad is actually behind any gas attacks. Very little. Doesn't make sense, but then things don't always have to make sense I suppose.

This is the new normal. Constant wars of intervention with no clear outcomes. Constant need for draconian surveillance and violation of the Constitution. All this benefits those in power and who favor a dominating and intrusive central government. Because only they can save us right?

[gwynedd1]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

I have very little confidence that Assad is actually behind any gas attacks. Very little. Doesn't make sense, but then things don't always have to make sense I suppose.

This is the new normal. Constant wars of intervention with no clear outcomes. Constant need for draconian surveillance and violation of the Constitution. All this benefits those in power and who favor a dominating and intrusive central government. Because only they can save us right?

My concern is they seem confident enough not to even bother with plausibility anymore. Its just a script for people to follow who know what's good for themselves...today.

[Mega]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

[ASH]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

I have very little confidence that Assad is actually behind any gas attacks. Very little. Doesn't make sense, but then things don't always have to make sense I suppose.

It doesn't make much sense to me, either, but it makes more sense than the alternative explanations I've heard.

Delivery by rocket to multiple rebel neighborhoods that the Syrian government was also attacking by conventional means sounds to me like the Syrian government. Yes, it could have been a rebel faction trying to draw Western intervention, using captured weapons, but that seems less likely to me. In the first place, as another poster noted, it is rumored that some of the rebels have sarin, but that's less well established than the Syrian government's acknowledged stockpile of chemical weapons. In the second place, the rebels aren't the ones with heavy weapon delivery systems (e.g. rocket artillery). Most importantly, if you were Assad or one of the rebel factions, observing the track record of the US, you would note:

• President Obama has thus far been obviously reluctant to intervene in Syria
• US military leadership has repeatedly and vocally opposed intervening in Syria
• American public opinion is very opposed to intervening in Syria
• President Obama has stressed the need for UN Security Council authorization for past interventions (which will definitely not be forthcoming from Russia and China)
• Presented with earlier pretexts to intervene (smaller-scale chemical attacks), President Obama did not take them
• Even the light weapons promised to the rebels by the US have not materialized
• Many of the people fighting Assad are sworn enemies of the US, so an American intervention in support of them makes no strategic sense

I contend that this pattern of past behavior would reduce the risk perceived by Assad that employing his chemical arms would draw in the US, and raise the risk perceived by the rebels that attempting to draw in Western involvement would fail. If I were the rebels and I had chemical weapons deliverable by rocket in the vicinity of Damascus, I'd probably try to take out the Syrian leadership instead of attacking a bunch of people on my own side in the hope of drawing in a flaky outsider that has looked weak and hypocritical thus far. There's an interesting article by John Norris that argues there's a history of dictators who initially prevail in facing down the US eventually playing their hands too far. He attributes the quip "A village a day keeps NATO away" to a Serbian general, describing the thinking that gradual ethnic cleansing could forestall Western intervention, as long as no single event was too sudden and shocking. When you "get away with it" for years, and the words of disproving outsiders are not backed by deeds, it's pretty easy to hold them in contempt and miscalibrate their threshold for action.

That said, I agree it doesn't make a lot of sense for Assad to grant UN inspectors access if he's responsible for the attacks. But to me, it still makes more sense than an alternative explanation. For one thing, forbidding, delaying, or restricting access by inspectors has, in the past, been a pretext for US intervention. There might be more percentage in relying upon the fact that the UN team's mandate is only to determine if chemical weapons were used, and not who used them. Then, having demonstrated willingness to work through the UN and comply with inspection, sheltering behind Russian and Chinese vetoes on UN Security Council resolutions may have seemed more practical. Since Obama had given a lot of lipservice to international norms and lawfulness up to this point, they might have (wrongly) concluded that the US under Obama would behave lawfully -- and the only substantive protection Assad has is through diplomatic blockage of legal intervention through the UN. By "playing by the rules" and allowing UN inspectors in, Assad may have been trying to defuse the argument that the UN should be circumvented.

For another thing, the UN inspectors were already in Syria, yet it took Assad four days to grant access to the site of the new attacks, during which those sites were pulverized with artillery. You could argue that ongoing military operations had to take precedence over what is essentially international diplomacy, and the battle in those areas had to be concluded before allowing the UN team in. On the other hand, if Assad's forces weren't responsible for the gas attack, you'd think he'd have wanted to get the UN team in there sooner, without churning everything up.

Anyway, from my standpoint, it doesn't make sense for Assad to use gas against the rebels, given that doing so wasn't militarily necessary (as far as I know), and that doing so incurs basically the only risk of significant outside intervention. At the same time, I'm not sure that time was on Assad's side -- although help from Hezbollah and his other allies had recently turned the tide of battle in his favor, it's not clear to me that the long-term trend was in his favor. He gained a one-time increment of Hezbollah fighters, but the rebel cause will continue to attract jihadis from across the region, and money and materiel from Iran's enemies (who, in aggregate, are much richer than Syria's benefactors). He can buy weapons from Russia, but I'm sure his regime is hurting for funds (the economy being wrecked and all), and his inventory of equipment and men are gradually being ground down. Perhaps he put too much faith in Obama's lawfulness and miscalibrated Obama's threshold for action; perhaps the recent gas attacks were meant to be just the next incremental escalation in a direction he hoped would end the rebellion before his power base is ground down. I think there could be other explanations, but this makes more sense to me than the alternatives I've heard.

[think365]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

It doesn't make much sense to me, either, but it makes more sense than the alternative explanations I've heard.

Delivery by rocket to multiple rebel neighborhoods that the Syrian government was also attacking by conventional means sounds to me like the Syrian government. Yes, it could have been a rebel faction trying to draw Western intervention, using captured weapons, but that seems less likely to me. In the first place, as another poster noted, it is rumored that some of the rebels have sarin, but that's less well established than the Syrian government's acknowledged stockpile of chemical weapons. In the second place, the rebels aren't the ones with heavy weapon delivery systems (e.g. rocket artillery). Most importantly, if you were Assad or one of the rebel factions, observing the track record of the US, you would note:

• President Obama has thus far been obviously reluctant to intervene in Syria
• US military leadership has repeatedly and vocally opposed intervening in Syria
• American public opinion is very opposed to intervening in Syria
• President Obama has stressed the need for UN Security Council authorization for past interventions (which will definitely not be forthcoming from Russia and China)
• Presented with earlier pretexts to intervene (smaller-scale chemical attacks), President Obama did not take them
• Even the light weapons promised to the rebels by the US have not materialized
• Many of the people fighting Assad are sworn enemies of the US, so an American intervention in support of them makes no strategic sense

I contend that this pattern of past behavior would reduce the risk perceived by Assad that employing his chemical arms would draw in the US, and raise the risk perceived by the rebels that attempting to draw in Western involvement would fail. If I were the rebels and I had chemical weapons deliverable by rocket in the vicinity of Damascus, I'd probably try to take out the Syrian leadership instead of attacking a bunch of people on my own side in the hope of drawing in a flaky outsider that has looked weak and hypocritical thus far. There's an interesting article by John Norris that argues there's a history of dictators who initially prevail in facing down the US eventually playing their hands too far. He attributes the quip "A village a day keeps NATO away" to a Serbian general, describing the thinking that gradual ethnic cleansing could forestall Western intervention, as long as no single event was too sudden and shocking. When you "get away with it" for years, and the words of disproving outsiders are not backed by deeds, it's pretty easy to hold them in contempt and miscalibrate their threshold for action.

That said, I agree it doesn't make a lot of sense for Assad to grant UN inspectors access if he's responsible for the attacks. But to me, it still makes more sense than an alternative explanation. For one thing, forbidding, delaying, or restricting access by inspectors has, in the past, been a pretext for US intervention. There might be more percentage in relying upon the fact that the UN team's mandate is only to determine if chemical weapons were used, and not who used them. Then, having demonstrated willingness to work through the UN and comply with inspection, sheltering behind Russian and Chinese vetoes on UN Security Council resolutions may have seemed more practical. Since Obama had given a lot of lipservice to international norms and lawfulness up to this point, they might have (wrongly) concluded that the US under Obama would behave lawfully -- and the only substantive protection Assad has is through diplomatic blockage of legal intervention through the UN. By "playing by the rules" and allowing UN inspectors in, Assad may have been trying to defuse the argument that the UN should be circumvented.

For another thing, the UN inspectors were already in Syria, yet it took Assad four days to grant access to the site of the new attacks, during which those sites were pulverized with artillery. You could argue that ongoing military operations had to take precedence over what is essentially international diplomacy, and the battle in those areas had to be concluded before allowing the UN team in. On the other hand, if Assad's forces weren't responsible for the gas attack, you'd think he'd have wanted to get the UN team in there sooner, without churning everything up.

Anyway, from my standpoint, it doesn't make sense for Assad to use gas against the rebels, given that doing so wasn't militarily necessary (as far as I know), and that doing so incurs basically the only risk of significant outside intervention. At the same time, I'm not sure that time was on Assad's side -- although help from Hezbollah and his other allies had recently turned the tide of battle in his favor, it's not clear to me that the long-term trend was in his favor. He gained a one-time increment of Hezbollah fighters, but the rebel cause will continue to attract jihadis from across the region, and money and materiel from Iran's enemies (who, in aggregate, are much richer than Syria's benefactors). He can buy weapons from Russia, but I'm sure his regime is hurting for funds (the economy being wrecked and all), and his inventory of equipment and men are gradually being ground down. Perhaps he put too much faith in Obama's lawfulness and miscalibrated Obama's threshold for action; perhaps the recent gas attacks were meant to be just the next incremental escalation in a direction he hoped would end the rebellion before his power base is ground down. I think there could be other explanations, but this makes more sense to me than the alternatives I've heard.

A good analysis of a complex situation.

I believe the bottom line is this: Never get involved in a land war in Asia (or the Middle East), as set forth in the DOD's video training manual, below.

Note: In this newly updated adaptation for the world stage, the role of the Great Vizzini shall be played by the always entertaining... Barack Obama; while the role of the Princess Bride, originally cast for Hilary Clinton, is gallantly portrayed by the uber talented actor John Kerry as her stand-in.