Could a US/NATO “punitive” attack against Syria unleash a wider regional war or even—as more elaborate narratives claim—the next world war?

Though many analysts think not, the term “law of unintended consequences” has been employed with increasing frequency in recent days and even the most informed experts on the issue—regardless of political affiliation—are saying that in a situation as complex and volatile as the one in Syria, nothing—especially the possibility of sparking wider violence—should be ruled out.

In this context, the state-run Interfax news agency reports on Thursday that the Russian Navy is sending both a missile cruiser and an anti-submarine battleship into the eastern Mediterranean Sea, where US warships are already stationed.

According to Reuters:

And also from Reuters, a report about possible direct or asymmetric responses by Syria’s Assad government or its regional backers could spell a variety of new violence in the Middle East and beyond:

And all these possibilities come as even pro-US military analysts, including active commanders, say that the “limited” strike being proffered would have potentially limited impact against changing the power dynamics in Syria.

And when The Independent’s Patrick Cockburn explores whether airstrikes will “spread the Syrian conflict to other countries in the region?” he responds by saying that such an attack by Western powers would only worsen a situation that has been steadily worsening:

__________________________________________________________