Washington: President Donald Trump made clear on Wednesday that missiles “will be coming” at Syria at any moment, telegraphing a military operation as he has previously said he would never do. But the real suspense remained - how many missiles, for how long, at what targets and to what end.
The strike that Trump was preparing as retaliation for a suspected chemical attack carries all sorts of perils that worry military planners and diplomats alike.
A fresh intervention in one of the most combustible battlegrounds on the planet - one already crawling with Syrian, Russian, Iranian, US, Turkish and Kurdish forces - could easily bring unintended consequences.
Here are some important facts to consider:
Strike will deepen conflict with Russia, Iran
The more expansive the strike, officials and experts said, the greater the risk of accidental casualties that could deepen the conflict with Russia or Iran. Yet a more restrained operation might not inflict enough damage on the government of President Bashar Assad to change his calculations.
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 defense system provided by Moscow.
And Trump’s Twitter warning, along with the delay in acting, has given the Syrians as well as their Russian and Iranian allies days to prepare.
Two Defense Department officials said 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 military forces in anticipation of US action.
“You want to hit military targets, military equipment as much as possible, because it’s the Syrian military that’s carrying out these atrocities,” said Andrew J. Tabler, a Syria scholar at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
“You want to make sure that you deliver a message and that you degrade their military capabilities.”
At the same time, he added, “the risk is, there are a lot of Russians throughout Syria.”
“They’re claiming they have people at every Syrian base,” he continued.
“If you end up killing Russians, that risks a confrontation with Russia.”
Last Trump strike failed to deter Al Assad
Few, if any, 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 air base 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 see and hope that it establishes a more effective deterrence? Or is President Trump going to, no kidding, pursue an effective deterrence that holds not just Al Assad, but his external backers, accountable as well?” said Jennifer Cafarella, a senior analyst at the Institute for the Study of War.
In the last three years, the Syrian military has significantly upgraded its air defense systems, mostly with help from Russia, a former senior Defense Department official said. Although surface-to-air missiles would likely threaten US aircraft in western Syria, those jets would be able to fire cruise missiles from hundreds of miles away, either out at sea or over a neighboring country.
With US intentions so clearly forecast by Trump, the Syrian government has moved aircraft to the Russian base near Latakia, and is taking pains to secure important weapons systems, military analysts said. Russia, too, has had several days now to move key personnel and equipment out of harm’s way.
Some analysts say the chemical attacks will continue unless Russian 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 defenses. 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.