“One day the great European War will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans (1888).”  — Otto von Bismarck

99 years ago this month, the First World War started.  The balance of terror on the European continent had been maintained since the Prussians beat the French like a rented mule in 1870, but Britain, Russia, France, Austro-Hungary, and Germany had spent the 40 years of ‘peace’ re-arming and maneuvering.  There were little brush fire wars in the Balkans and a few other places, but the big countries were keeping their eyes on each other as they reloaded.

The spark for the Great War was, of course, the assassination of the heir to the Austo-Hungarian throne by a Serb nationalist.  Austria declared war on Serbia, Russia declared war on Austria, Germany declared war on Russia and France, and Great Britain joined in to complete the royal flush.  By the time all was said and done, millions were dead and wounded, centuries old governments and countries were wiped from the map, and the world had begun its long swim in the blood of millions killed in future wars and the attrocities of Nazism and Communism.

Now, we seem to be heading down an eerily similar path.

Someone, either the Assad regime or the Islamic forces who are trying to overthrow him, lobbed chemical weapons shells at civilians the other night.  Hundreds are dead, and the world is lining up on one side of the battlefield or the other on whether or not to ‘punish’ Assad for this despicable incident.  Because making idle threats is what you do when you want to be seen as acting but don’t want to risk actually doing something, President Obama painted a big, bright red line around the use of WMD’s in the Syrian Civil War.  Now that his line has been crossed, he’s having to rattle the saber and publicly threaten to…. do something.

In the event that he makes more than a token show of force so that he can beat his Nobel Peace Prize against his chest and proclaim that he has avenged those who were killed, here’s how I see things rolling out:

1. The U.S., with or without our allies, does something that critically damages Assad.  Maybe a short but sharp aerial bombardment of military installations such as air defense, air force, or tank parks happens.  Whatever it is, it’s something that Assad can’t easily afford to lose while he tries to keep from being forced into retirement in Tehran.
2. Regionally, Iran uses this as an excuse to do…. something.  My guess is to start sinking ships in the Straits of Hormuz or just start sending Iranian army units into Syria to augment the Syrian army, Hezbollah, and the Republican Guard units that are already fighting there.  It’s possible they could even start a campaign of attacks against the soft underbelly of the American and European civilian countries – their civilians.
3. Globally, Russia reacts.  Maybe they just make diplomatic and economic noises, but quite possibly, Russia could reinforce its naval base and other forces in Syria, especially if any ‘advisors’ or ‘trainers’ are hurt in the initial American attacks.  That would up the chances of more conflict with either the American supported anti-Assad forces or incidents where Russian forces tangle with American forces in either the sky or on the sea.  Russia could also shut off the natural gas taps for any European country that assisted the Americans, either with forces, flyover, or basing.  Nothing encourages a nation to get into a war fever than watching pensioners die of cold because another country cut off their heat just before winter.
4. Tensions mount, Syria turns into even more of a flaming wreck, and the war there gets even bloodier.  It possibly spreads to neighboring, multi-ethnic and multi-faith countries (Turkey, Iraq).
5. As the dominoes start to wobble and fall, the major powers start propping up their client states with more and more direct aid, probably including direct military intervention.  Would we stand by as an Iranian-backed revolution in Turkey destabilized a NATO ally?  Would Russia stand by as we repeatedly smacked Iran and Syria upside the head?
6. Russia and the United States eventually come to blows, either in and around Syria, or in other areas.  China also might get dragged into this, which could spread the conflict to the Pacific, where they have been sparring with Japan, the Philippines, and Korea over resources.
7. Of course, like everything else in the madhouse of the Levant, the joker in the deck is Israel.  Would Hezbollah, Hamas, and every other wild-eyed pissant in the region let a war break out without trying to push the Israelis into a grave?  Would Israel retaliate against them, even if it meant being drawn into a growing regional conflict?

Now, this is only one way this could go, and like all predictions, it’s possibly not worth the electrons it took to make it.  But the probability of an Iranian or Russian response to a major attack against Assad by the United States and her allies is pretty high.  Would it become a proxy war between Putin and Obama, or maybe even a shooting war between the great powers?  One would hope not, and also hope that rational thinkers would avert such a thing.  But rationality is not known to be common in these things.

There are only a couple of ways I can see this not blossoming into something ugly:

1. If indeed it was the Syrian government that carried out the attack, then Assad could avert this by giving up his subordinates who carried it out.  I doubt he would allow them to be arrested and tried at the Hague, but nothing calms the waters like a quick show trial and a public execution.
2. Obama reaches out to Russia and makes them a partner in getting to the bottom of this and punishing the bad actors.  Russia supports Assad, but if Putin put his approval on a plan to investigate and prosecute, especially if the Russians are given an equal footing in the endeavor, then that would deescalate things between the great powers.  That could also allow the U.N. to be useful, for once.
3. Obama makes a meaningless show of force, Putin and Obama bluster at each other until the next shiny object comes up for review, and the Syrians, Iranians, and Islamists keep ripping each other’s guts out for the foreseeable future.
4. Obama is forestalled from acting precipitously, and the crisis is resolved by those who actually have a dog in the fight.

I see 1 and 3 as being the most likely.  Assad is a survivor, and Obama is all about public shows with nothing to back them up.

Of course, number 4 would require that someone in Congress actually read the Constitution and realize that it’s not for the President to start a war.  Currently, my Congressman and one of my Senators are lonely voices in the wilderness on this, but they need to be joined by their colleagues.   President Obama abused his war powers when it came to Libya, and now it appears that he is going to do it again.  Nothing that has happened in Syria poses a threat to the United States, and if force is necessary, then Congress, not the President nor the U.N., needs to be the one to authorize it.

History is rhyming, and I am convinced that if the next Great War is to begin in the near future, it will be precipitated by some damned foolish thing in Syria.  Here’s hoping that we get luckier this time than we did in 1914.