I agree,
And, with the Russian ships in the area, with the potential for Yahkont or other anti-shipping missiles from Syria, and because of numerous other threats, the US is going to have a very strong over watch mission going on in the entire area with E-3 and E-2C/D AEW and AWACS. They will know precisely who shoots down any Tomahawk should it happen.
Unless the US goes far beyond any rational limit in this, or makes a horrible mistake, the Russians are going to watch it happen. IMHO, they are there to make sure that the US does not go further than the Russians feel they can stand. And then as a trip wire.
I honestly believe Obama will not order a large scale, prolonged air campaign against Syria. Too risky, both militarily and politically, and he knows it. At least I pray he is not so foolish as to do so. That's what he would have to do to reduce Syria's actual military capability.
I believe he has painted himself into a box and now wants to show that he is "serious," so to speak.
The danger in all this remains the total lack of trust that the Russians have for US intentions.
The US is now talking about proceeding with an action on the basis of R2P and are presenting R2P as a trump over any other form of International Law or obligation.
Previously of course R2P was used in Libya as the pretext for regime change with the fig leaf of a UN resolution, while now they the US is saying that R2P creates an obligation which exceeds the need for International consensus. Who could seriously blame the Russians for suspecting that a nation that happily uses a resolution backed R2P as the pretext for regime change, will not use it as a pretext again, especially when they use it as a moral high ground in this way.
What then would the claim of military action be all about? What would be the supposed targets? We have learned that Syria is dispersing its Strategic Arsenal, while attacks on the Chemical Weapons would be far too risky.
This leaves only two likely other objectives; Command and Control and/or Air Defence.
In either case it is too late once the missiles are flying to wait and see if the US is honouring its word. If C & C and AD are the targets, then clearly the missiles are not a warning shot, but merely the opening salvo as a prelude to open the skies to round the clock Air Bombardment and eventual Regime Change.
Russia and China have already been fooled once and on the basis of "Fool me once, shame on you.......etc" will not be prepared to be made to look foolish again.
IMHO Russia can only but assume that any missiles strike will simply be the softening up salvo and that if they are allowed to transit unchallenged and hit their targets, that it would be game over and that protection of Russia to its allies is meaningless. They will therefore have no option but to work with the Syrians and together seek to interdict the missiles directly.
Can China become involved in this? Yes and in an nuanced way. What China will not do is escalate in a pre-emptive way. China knows that the threat of its greater involvement will be a major deterrence to the US and others and so will only escalate in response to direct and continued provocations.
The launching of an attack by the US without UN backing will be taken as China as a major escalation. They will support Russian interdiction and afterwards will warn that they will join in future interdiction if Washington attempts a further strike.
You must not forget the Garrison in Afghanistan either. If missiles fly at Syria, you can safely assume that all routes of Afghanistan will be closed to NATO traffic and this would cause considerable political problems and a crisis greater than the blockade of Berlin.
I think you would also see the Asian Powers start to apply pressure across the globe on sensitive spots to both draw US forces as thin as possible, and to also "confuse" the media story and make reportage incoherent.
At all times however, the risk of rapid and dangerous calamitous escalation would be ever present and ever more threatening as long as any crisis remained.
