A lot is at stake with the situation in Syria right now. Before we can decide what would be the best course of action, however, we must first figure out what got us here.
The Gas Attack
Theory 1: Official story
On April 4th, toxic gas killed dozens in a rebel-held area of Syria. The mainstream, official story is that the Assad regime ordered the attack. This claim was reinforced by the findings of Israel’s Mossad.
It has been noted that Assad would have no motive to do such a thing, especially when the tide started to turn in favor of him and against the rebels and ISIS in the Syrian Civil War. The New York Times acknowledges this, but put forward the hypothesis that it was essentially a show of power and ruthlessness from the regime toward the opposition. I, personally, still don’t think Assad is stupid enough to try to intimidate forces he is already beating at the expense of angering the likes of the United States.
Theory 2: False flag
Given the lack of a reason for Assad to initiate the attack, many have theorized it was a false flag perpetrated by the opposition in order to frame Assad and change the international community’s minds, namely the US, as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said just a few days before the incident that the “longer-term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people,” implying the US would stop focusing on regime-change in the region.
As a lesser-known YouTuber I like to watch pointed out: cui bono? Asking this question would certainly seem to support the idea that it could have been a false flag, because the ones who are benefiting from it are the rebels and ISIS, as the US struck one of Assad’s airfields with 59 tomahawk missiles in response, and may well continue combating the regime, in essence aiding the rebels.
Theory 1: Trump turned Neo-Con
Much of Trump’s base disagrees with his decision to attack the airfield. Some, like Paul Joseph Watson (and dare I say myself) so much as to jump off of the “Trump train”. A large reason he was elected instead of Hillary was his anti-war-and-escalation-in-the-Middle-East stance. Lots of Neo-Cons and Never-Trumpers, such as Bill Kristol and Ben Shapiro, came out in favor of the strikes.
A possibility is that Trump, as Paul Joseph Watson pointed out, surrounded himself with warhawk Neo-Cons when it came to foreign policy, who have persuaded him to do this, and that he has simply lost touch with his supporters.
Theory 2: 4D chess
Donald Trump is highly intelligent. He has shown himself to be able to, for example, manipulate the media into talking about the things he wants the people to know about, by putting out a hyperbole that the media tries to debunk. Thus some have theorized that this is all a trick on his part, to please the left and the Neo-Cons by showing a willingness to go after Assad, all at little cost in terms of foreign relations, as Russia was warned beforehand and they could have warned Assad beforehand, and the missiles only killed a few Syrian military personnel. Hopefully this is the case and he pursues no further escalation.
Those are my thoughts and the main theories I’ve heard put forward. Am I missing anything? Did I get anything wrong? Let me know.