I think the way to get a read on this situation is to look closer at some of the smaller or apparently insignificant details and the context in which this event occurred. Also, I think such events are usually designed to serve multiple purposes, and there are other purposes that can be served from an opportunistic pov.
For example, Russia was apparently notified of the attack. This would, presumably, have allowed the Russians time to decide whether or not to act to prevent it. It seems they decided not to do so. Does that suggest Russian consent to the attack? Maybe as a way to allow Trump some relief from the accusations of being 'pro-Russian'. Then again, if Trump and Putin sort of 'agreed' on this, then that would tend to imply ties between the two! Although I think that angle is too nuanced for the Western press, they're just happy that Murika fired some of its "
beautiful weapons" at a "bad guy" and restored some prestige.
Does Trump know the 'chem weapons' thing was a set up? Or does he really believe it was Assad? I think the former is more likely. In that case, the people who orchestrated the chemical attack may have done so for the specific purpose of not exactly forcing Trump's hand, but more like making him a tempting offer: 'run with the Assad used chemical weapons line and back the attack on the airfield to relieve pressure on you from your anti-Russian detractors in the USA and make you seem more like a real US president'. But in taking this action, Trump has left himself open to being under serious pressure to take more action in the event that some similar trumped-up charges are leveled at Assad, or even Russia. Note that in the aftermath of the 'pew! pew!' on the airfield, the Senate announced that they would be looking into whether or not Russia was involved in the chemical attack!
When you look at the last few years of the covert war between the US and Russia, the US warmongers seem able only to engage in fairly crass set ups that are relatively easily predictable (or manageable) by Russia, along with rather crass propaganda that is nevertheless emotionally charged and therefore convincing to the average person (see MH17 for example).
It seems that game theory is being employed here by both sides. with Russia coming out on top so far because it seems able to employ more complex 'algorithms' than the US. But maybe it's not so much a case of ability as it is a product of the positions from which each side started the 'game'. The US began from a position of apparently unrivaled power and influence, while Russia was relatively weak. The US' long history of using a big stick to intimidate others gave them good reason to assume they would be able to continue to do so and therefore they saw no need to budget for a competent challenger coming on the scene, at least not any time soon.
From the Russian perspective, aware of their weakness, they were naturally forced to get stronger, get smart, get creative, study their enemy in depth, identify weaknesses, study possible scenarios in a detailed way and formulate plans. When Russia was ready and announced itself as a challenger, at least in the Middle East, it not only came as a surprise to the US, but in the 18 months since then it seems Russia has done an excellent job of covering all the bases in terms of neutralizing all possible US responses. So for the last 18 months the US firsters have been made to look pretty impotent by Russia, and they are NOT happy about it. No wonder that the recent 'pew! pew!' Tomahawk attack on the Syrian airfield, while quite 'poor' by military ops standards (as the Russians said), was greeted by people like John McCain almost with tears of joy!
It's a relief to hear that.
