The Syrian government is barely holding their own against the rebels. I doubt very much if they would open up another front.
The other Arab nations did not respond after Israel attacked Syria last year. I don't see why they would respond now after a chemical weapons attack. Egypt is the strongest military power in the region (other than Israel) and it has issues of it's own right now. I doubt very much if Egypt would enter into a conflict at this point.
That pretty much leaves us with Iran, as far as major military might in the region goes. Maybe Iran wants to go one on one with Israel and maybe it doesn't. If it does then it will find an excuse sooner or later and if it doesn't then it won't respond to the US attacking Syria.
Regional war seems very unlikely in the short term no matter what we do (or don't do).
The potential upside in this calculation is deterring the use of chemical weapons. I know it is hard to see because you can't ever know if someone would have used a chemical weapon if not for the price Assad paid for doing so. It is a classic "dog that didn't bark" scenario.
Given the number of popular uprisings and/or civil wars that the Middle East has seen recently, I think that sending a message in regards to the use of chemical weapons could have a substantial upside. If killing 1400+ with a gas attack has no downside for the attacker then why not do it on a regular basis? Why not kill 2400 or 3400 at a time? There needs to be a downside to the use of chemical weapons and the risk of a US attack is a reasonable downside.
I'm not crazy about attacking Syria but I am less crazy about more chemical attacks. If we don't respond this time then the next time we would need to launch an even larger attack in order to make our point. If Pres. Obama makes this call then I will support it. At some point we need to have faith in our leadership even if Bush did just abuse that power and make us all "once bit, twice shy".
= new reply since forum marked as read