Previous posts have warned that Russia could attack US warships in the Mediterranean Sea with Russian supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles if US warships fire missiles at Syrian targets. The first link reports that that danger is now a reality. If you have followed media reports, Russia has sternly warned the USA that it will support Syria if the US attacks Syria.
Russia has backed up its words with actions. Russia has sent sophisticated anti-aircraft and missile-defense systems to Syria to thwart a US attack. Russian warships have been sent to reinforce Syrian defenses. Russia has also supplied Syria with very sophisticated Russian supersonic cruise missiles that can be fired at US warships if those warships fire cruise missiles at Syrian targets (see second link). As the second link notes, these missiles give the Syrians the ability to sink the US warships if they fire missiles at Syria. If this happens it will be a foreign-policy and political disaster of the highest order for President Obama. If Obama orders the US warships to fire on Syrian targets, I very much hope that the US warships have been equipped with upgraded defensive weapons systems that can shoot down supersonic missiles. Indeed, I would not be surprised if Russia has sent its own soldiers to man the Russian missile batteries under Syrian flags to see if Russia can sink US warships and shoot down US warplanes with the latest Russian technologies. Russia may be eager for a chance to test its weaponry vs. American targets under real wartime conditions. Obama may be about to give them that opportunity. It is entirely possible that within seconds or minutes of US warships attacking Syrian targets with cruise missiles, that Russian supersonic cruise missiles will be fired at the US warships who started the attack.
Russia’s commitment to defend the Assad regime is deeply entrenched. The third link and fourth link document that Russia sent high-tech anti-ship missiles to Syria two years ago to defend against any American or NATO attack.
It is bizarre, in my judgment, that Obama, Pelosi, Kerry, McCain, etc. and the US media are beating the war-drums so hard to attack Syria when Syria has done nothing to attack or threaten any US interests anywhere. The US also has no UN resolution, NATO vote or treaty obligation to attack Syria so doing so would make Obama (laughably, a Nobel Peace prize winner in spite of doing nothing to merit it) the aggressor in a war which would give Syria the right to retaliate in any way it sees fit. It is amusing to see Obama, Kerry and other administration flacks citing “international norms” as a justification for an American attack. They use this contorted language as they know there is no justification under “international laws” for any such US attack.
Previous posts have warned that the activation of Hezbollah “sleeper cells” on American soil to attack American targets and civilians, the shutting of the Strait of Hormuz by Syria’s ally, Iran, and a massive missile strike by Hezbollah against Israeli targets are all risks of any American attack vs. Syria. Please understand I’m not predicting any specific such reactions, but am pointing out that these are all very real risks of any American attack vs. Syria. There isn’t any guarantee whatsoever that an American limited attack vs. Syria will result in an equally-limited attack by Syria vs. the USA. A very dangerous and costly Mideast war is possible if Obama decides to start a war with Syria.
We now await the vote of the US Congress on the matter. If Obama attacks Syria without approval from Congress, he does so without any Constitutional right and without any rights under the US War Powers Act (which allowed US presidents to use military force if American interests or forces are attacked by other nations). Attacking without any international or American legal permission would open up Obama to the risk of being impeached by the US Congress for violating US laws in authorizing a reckless attack. It even potentially exposes US military commanders to charges of war-crimes if they launch attacks knowing that Obama had issued illegal orders to them to launch such attacks with no legal backing. The polls show Americans are substantially against any attacks vs. Syria so if such attacks go badly, they can be expected to take their wrath out in the next election against Obama and the Democrats as well as any Republicans who supported an utterly unnecessary attack vs. Syria.
A recent post reported that the Herald Tribune website reported that Iranian forces in Syria, not Assad, had ordered the chemical weapons strike. Another website (see fifth link) reports the Syrian rebels were responsible for the chemical weapons attack in a “false flag” operation designed to dupe Obama into acting against Assad. There are so many contradictory reports about who was responsible for the chemical weapons attack that it is bizarre that the Obama administration is eager to attack Syria without any firm determination re: who made the attack.
The last link is an unusual bonus. South Dakota likely has the only ex-US Senator with extensive family connections in Syria. His column on a possible attack on Syria by Obama is well worth your reading and I enclose it for your information.