No Comprendo! What Good Would It do For the USA-GB Alliance to Attack Syria?

Honestly, I think there should have had been a surprise "surgical attack" on the sites of the nuclear development in Iran.  But I don't see what useful, suitable target there could be in Syria. 

Warplanes and military transporters have begun arriving at Britain's Akrotiri airbase on Cyprus, less than 100 miles from the Syrian coast, in a sign of increasing preparations for a military strike against the Assad regime in Syria.

It's one thing if they had secret agents to surprise assassinate/execute Assad and his higher ups. 



It's pretty clear that the United States hasn't a clue as to what to do and what the Syrian and Arab culture, mentality is really like. Yes, I understand that they are "outraged."  But how do you militarily attack a "regime" in a useful, efficient way?  I'll never forget the absurdity of the American attack on Iraq that killed thousands of soldiers and civilians to give Sadam Hussein a fair trial.  What fair trial di they give to those soldiers and civilians they killed? And if the allied forces do get the Assad regime out of power, who will rule in his place?  Does the United States really want to find itself with another Iraq to rule?

Barry Rubin writes that none of what's going on in Syria is really all that new.

To understand Syria’s special feature, it is best to heed the all-important insight of a Lebanese-American scholar, Fouad Ajami: “Syria’s main asset, in contrast to Egypt’s preeminence and Saudi wealth, is its capacity for mischief.”
In the final analysis, the aforementioned mischief was in the service of regime maintenance, the all-encompassing cause and goal of the Syrian government’s behavior. Demagoguery, not the delivery of material benefits, is the basis of its power.
Why have those who govern Syria followed such a pattern for more than six decades under almost a dozen different regimes? The answer: Precisely because the country is a weak one in many respects. Aside from lacking Egypt’s power and Saudi Arabia’s money, it also falls short on internal coherence due to its diverse population and minority-dominated regime. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein used repression, ideology, and foreign adventures to hold together a system dominated by Sunni Arab Muslims who were only one-fifth of the population. In Syria, even more intense measures were needed to sustain an Alawite regime that rules based on a community only half as large proportionately.

I don't think it would be wise on Israel's part to use logic and common sense when trying to predict Syrian action.  Yaakov Lappin is wrong:

Any US military step will probably serve as a “slap” to the Syrian regime, but won’t go as far as toppling President Bashar Assad from power.
Hence, it would be an act of self-destruction on Assad’s part to drag Israel into the conflict, for any direct Syrian retribution against Israel would endanger the very existence of the embattled regime in Damascus.

It's important to remember that the "international community" is consistently wrong in its analysis and policy when it comes to the Middle-East, which is the most dangerous thing when talking about international peace and stability.

One response that would make sense would be for Israel, Right, Left, Center, politicians, academics and media to publically state that the Golan will remain forever in Israeli hands for the safety and security of Israel, Jews and non-Jews alike.