Originally Posted by
DroneDog
Assad is winning, ISIS is being wiped out, it would be ludicrous to suggest Assad would carry out such an attack considering the repercussions.
Argument from incredulity noted. Not convincing. From where I sit, it makes no sense for him to engage in a chemical attack because he knows the whole world is watching and getting into his business. Has been since the uprising 2011-2012. In the long game, politically, since his intention is to remain in power and not go into exile (or whatever) then he's got to take the long position.
Balanced against that is the general imperative in a civil war of "hit the opponent hard enough so that they stop fighting." Look at how long this civil war has been going on, and the
hope that any and all of his opponents have that he'll get removed if they just keep fighting. This
hope that is boosted by foreign assistance (from numerous actors) to the various factions who are his opponents. (The longer this thing goes on the more I am reminded of the Spanish Civil War, but it's got its own sort of logic ... ) Assad and his inner circle do not want a forever war. It's incredibly destructive to the unity and prosperity of their country.
Would he and his team reach for something beyond the pale with the aim of "ending this?" Maybe. It's not beyond the realm of possibility, nor beyond the range of the plausible that the chemical weapons tool is perceived as useful toward that end.
Preposterous? Not if you analyze it
unemotionally.
A good idea? If one considers the long range political fall out ... I'd say it's would be a bad move since his intent is to stay in office/stay in power in Syria. But I am not sitting in his chair trying to figure out how to do two things at once:
1. end this civil war
2. remain in office
I won't pretend to know what steps he will or won't take to achieve that end.
Has he actually run out of other options? I don't know, and
opinions on that vary.