Good news for everyone with stock in Lockheed Martin; we're going Full Kosovo on Assad's ass.
Using the "Kosovo Precedent," we will use a nod from NATO and some vague international coalition in place of international law and the United Nations to launch a limited, "humanitarian" war. Like with Kosovo, Russia hates it and will veto any resolution in the UN security council to authorize such a war, even after Saudi Arabia and Qatar offered a huge oil bribe (like Russia doesn't already have oil?). But unlike in Kosovo, there is a serious risk of dangerous escalation: Syria has the capacity to retaliate on U.S. targets abroad, it has been receiving overt materiel support from Russia, and they have a defense pact with Iran.
Though a majority of U.S. citizens are opposed to war in Syria, U.S. congress-people and pundits have been beating the war drums. A "red line" was drawn, we are reminded, and chemical weapons were used on civilians, after all.
Included in the declassified document is admission that the CIA knew Saddam would use it, that the CIA alerted Saddam that Iranian forces were amassing near a hole in Iraq's defenses, and that, when asked, Reagan said simply, "an Iranian victory is unacceptable." It's "funny" that this situation comes so close to the CIA admitting its role in Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons against Iran, as well as it finally officially admitting our role in the overthrow of Iran in the 1950's. I'm thinking the CIA might be worried about blowback.
Given that we have a history of slipping chemical weapons to dangerous people in order to covertly manage the political landscape in the Middle East, is it so crazy to think it possible that we, via proxies, gave chemical weapons to one of the factions of rebels in order to provide enough justification for war?
No evidence has yet been presented that the Assad regime - terrible as it is - was actually responsible for the attack. However, earlier this year, Turkish forces uncovered a rebel stronghold which was storing chemical weapons. And jihadist elements are believed to be operating among, or as, one or some of the Syrian rebel factions.
Who gains from war in Syria?
NATO gets to flex some muscle. Lockheed Martin gets an influx of cash, as well as everyone else that makes bullets, missiles, bayonets, and MREs, as every participating country in the conflict suddenly has increased need. The Democratic establishment gets a fresh load of campaign contributions from the military industrial complex. Generals get the extra star they always wanted. Israel gets a chance to embroil Iran in a devastating war that would likely remove the last legs of support for Hamas and Hezbollah. Al Qaeda and other such groups get battle training and a potent recruitment tool and Saudi supported jihadi organizations in general get the satisfaction of getting the US involved in another big war that saps the US economy, maintains a high demand for oil, and further safeguards the importance of Saudi Arabia's strategic relationship with the U.S..
So we will be going for a round of missile strikes, first from the safety of the sea, then maybe from the air. Boots on the ground are unlikely, unless the bombing does result in regime change, then "peace keepers" will be considered necessary to deal with the civil war that will fill the power vacuum.
Of course the dumbest predictions to make are any at all, as the future is in a state of flux right up until it happens, but I'd still bet on it.