I have never read an article in which author wrote along the lines of: this could happen, but that could happen too, but then again, something else could happen

"Aware of his limited conventional capabilities, Assad might try to drag his allies into a war with Israel. While Hezbollah already has thousands of men in Syria fighting alongside government forces, attacking Israel directly would risk another 2006-style war in Lebanon. Furthermore, Hezbollah's zeal and eagerness to fight Israel notwithstanding, the organization is in a politically sensitive position in Lebanon at the moment, a condition that would likely further deter it from opening two large-scale military fronts simultaneously. Given its long-term investment in Hezbollah, Iran would be equally unlikely to see its Lebanese ally dragged into a damaging fight with Israel at this juncture.  Some Iranian lawmakers have suggested that Iran would retaliate against Israel directly if Syria is attacked, but neither Iran's supreme leader nor the country's president has issued similar statements. This doesn't categorically guarantee that Iran will remain on the sidelines -- in theory Iran could decide to attack U.S. assets in the Gulf -- but this is extremely unlikely given the huge risks and consequences of such an action."

 And they conclude by this incisive war advice to the US:  "When and if the U.S. launches its attacks (likely targeting command and control centers, airfields, and strategic weapons and delivery systems), Assad might well do very little beyond issuing rhetorical condemnations. However, he will still have several possible retaliatory options that the United States and its allies will need to consider".  So basically, they are saying: the Syrian regime may retaliate, but then again it may decide to not retaliate.  I finished the article learning more about logic AND about the Middle East than I had known before.