Until a few days ago, it seemed all but certain that an attack on Syria by the US, Britain and France would have already occurred by now. Indeed, many anti-war activists felt that the war would already be underway by the time they were on the streets with placards and slogans, but it has not yet happened. A strong case can be made that two essential reasons may have contributed to the delay in the strike. The first reason is that the short-term moral case for US intervention is weak. It is now generally acknowledged by analysts and media sources that the grounds for intervention provided by John Kerry’s four-page report are very shaky and there is an absence of any real evidence that implicates the Syrian government in the chemical attacks that allegedly occurred on August 21. While the US claims to have all the evidence it needs to confirm that chemical attacks occurred and that moreover the Syrian government was responsible for them, the UN’s own inspection team has yet to establish whether the chemical attacks occurred at all, and on the other side of the spectrum, Russia sharply disagrees on both the evidence and who to assign blame to. Further damaging the moral case for military intervention is the fact that the British parliament voted against it, and now Britain is out of the coalition. The significance of Britain backing out is not only that it will now be unable to add to the firepower and logistical preparedness of the overall attack, but also that the US wanted to share the moral burden and show that it had the backing of the whole world. Now, the attacking coalition has been reduced to just France and the US. In this context, President Barack Obama now finds it necessary to fill in the moral gap by turning to the US Congress, which is to reconvene on September 9. An approval from Congress is not really needed to proceed with an attack on Syria, but it would provide added legitimacy. However, a vote of rejection from Congress could place Obama in a very uncomfortable position politically. Providing moral justification is important for preventing public opposition to the war, because, if recent polls are accurate, 53 percent oppose an intervention and only 20 percent support it. There is every possibility that these figures may change for the worse and translate into disruptive agitation, or worse, damage the voter base. However, speaking plainly, there has never been a moral justification for attacking Syria. Rachel Shabi explains this well by rhetorically asking in a recent article whether there was a ‘red line’ when the US used depleted-uranium ammunition in Fallujah, Iraq, or when Israel deployed white phosphorous in Gaza in 2008 or when Saddam Hussein gassed Iranians in the 1980s with support from the CIA. The fact is that the goal of the US is more far reaching than mere “prevention of atrocities”, and extends to geo-political domination of the region. As such, it is more likely that the deliberations of Congress members will be less on humanitarian reasons and more on cold-calculations over what might be gained or lost from an attack on Syria in the long-term. The second reason is that the long-term implications for the US of a limited attack are dangerous. Bold statements by the Secretary of Defence Chuck Hagel that “all military options are on the table” have given way to less ambitious ones from President Obama about “limited strikes to send a message”. That this may not be a full-scale bombardment like the one executed over Libya comes as no comfort to Syria, Iran or Russia, who are expected to retaliate in different ways. While Iran and Russia may not overtly provide military support, they will certainly provide covert support to boost the capability of Syria to counterattack and defend itself. Syria may retaliate by attacking Israel, which is guaranteed to respond with brute force. Israel’s retaliation may draw in Iran and Lebanon proper. This could become a vicious cycle that would lead to an upgraded military response from the US. President Obama has tried to reassure the American public and Congress that he aims to “deter, disrupt, prevent and degrade Syrian chemical attacks”, but the real outcome of this stated intervention will probably be a severe escalation of hostilities that will engulf the region and drag in other countries into the conflict on a frightful scale. In the coming days perhaps, the US political leadership will have some time to think about whether it can make such a war commitment. But supposing all that is wrong and the limited strikes do not actually set the Middle East aflame, will they really help the Syrian rebels to win? It is unlikely that the targeted strikes against Syria’s chemical facilities will go very far in changing the overall balance of power in which Bashar al-Assad’s government has gone from a strategic stalemate to a strategic offensive. To achieve this, the Syrian government has relied on conventional warfare, whereas the alleged chemical attacks themselves have been generally reported as very isolated incidents. Syrian government forces have already begun evacuations and transfers of key personnel and equipment away from perceived cruise missile targets and it is even suggested by some analysts that their anti-missile intelligence might be bolstered by the two Russian warships recently moved to the Mediterranean. The ultimately deciding factor remains, as before, a No-Fly Zone, i.e., a wider scale bombardment that effectively eliminates the Syrian government’s air force and defensive capabilities that might endanger aerial supplies and logistical support to the rebels. And yet, the prospects for launching a No-Fly Zone have become increasingly weaker; Jordan, once regarded as a suitable potential base, has now clarified that it will not be used as a launching pad and favours a diplomatic solution to the crisis, whereas Turkey, another potential base for launching attacks, will risk restarting the civilian protest movement if it allows attacks on Syria from its soil. It may not be a coincidence therefore that President Obama has only been able to talk about launching limited strikes. It must be concluded that the way events are unfolding, the whole Syrian debacle is en route to becoming a major political fiasco for the Obama administration in every conceivable scenario. The writer is a recent MBA graduate from the University of Texas. He can be reached at isbarlas@gmail.com