Answer: President Assad.
Why you ask.
Because President Assad wouldn't attack Israel
The risk to Israel is less a counterattack from Damascus than from Hezbollah. Bashar al-Assad of Syria doesn’t need a new front with Israel. Syria remembers not just its thorough defeat at the hands of Israel in 1967 and 1973 but also its humiliation in the skies over the Bekaa Valley in 1982 when it challenged Israeli air dominance. In a two-day dogfight, Israel shot down 60 Syrian planes and lost none.
Then again he really cant work out whom to support
Today our only hope seems to be supporting and arming Salim Idriss, the one rebel commander who speaks in moderate, tolerant tones. But he could easily turn, or could be overwhelmed by the jihadists. As they say in the Middle East, you don’t buy allies here. It’s strictly a rental.
Yet he wants President Obama to act decisively, like Israel, you know there comes a time when you just have to bomb something.
You know you’re in trouble when you can’t even get your walk-back story straight. Stung by the worldwide derision that met President Obama’s fudging and fumbling of his chemical-weapons red line in Syria, the White House leaked to the New York Times that Obama’s initial statement had been unprepared, unscripted and therefore unserious
He must blow something up. For whom? Even the brilliantly frothing mind of Chuck hasn't got a clue..
But..Hezbollah! Possibly even BENGHAZI!
You have to act now.
Bomb something otherwise we look weak.
Looking stupid is obviously OK by Chuck, because playing with venomous snakes is fun.