U.S. Tomahawk bombardment at Syrian military airbase is all about, "Take heed Mr. Putin we are here!"

  Does history repeat itself? This proverb has a funny story in my archive, it's related to my formal professor's antagonistic attitude towards it, he's a knowledgeable sociologist who lost his temper once when a student at the lecture argued the reason behind a historical phenomenon that he was asked about, "Well, my professor, it's simply attributed to the proverb, "history repeats itself." Then, happened what's unexpected when my professor reluctantly and deniably replied to this apparently unsubstantiated theory without bringing up the real postulates that prove it. Since then, this theory or proverb has been a title of a funny story. 

Getty/Reuters

Today in the morning, I woke up to find that my friend had posted on his FB wall;

"Is it a coincidence or well-concerted has something aftermath?! 

On April 6th, 1917, the U.S.A. declared war on Germany, and president Wilson justified it with moral motives accusing Germany of using chemical weapons. Therefore, it will be the war that will end all wars, because of breaking out wars in Europe.

On April 6th, 2017, the U.S.A. bombarded Syria, and president Trump justified it with moral motives as a reaction to using chemical weapons by the regime." 

This synchronization is thinkable sets a big question mark after the probing question, "is this synch well-orchestrated?" It may be ascribed to what my colleague once argued, "history repeats itself," and then full-stop to become a comic story.

In fact, and although the U.S. bombardment operations including airstrikes have been operative since December 2014 when the U.S. administration unanimously declared war on ISIL -has been extensively expanding in the Syrian territories- by allying with other countries to form Multinational Air War in Syria, and the latest U.S. Tomahawk missiles bombardment at Syrian airbase proved to have been a new phase of military confrontation between the international fighting forces in Syria.

Emotionally, President Trump stated, "Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad launched a horrible chemical weapons attack on innocent civilians. Assad choked out the lives of helpless men, women, and children. It was a slow and brutal death for so many. Even beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this very barbaric attack."

In reaction to this uncoordinated stride, president Putin said, "the strike had seriously damaged ties between Moscow and Wahington," and regarded it, "an aggression against a sovereign nation." Thus, he declared the suspension of the agreement that prevents direct conflict with American forces in Syria.

In the light of this new transformation, I can argue that the U.S. military escalation won't be a reliable to step forward which carries a promise over into new cooperative relations among fighting factions that Russia and the U.S.A lead, to sit down on one table for negotiating this crisis. On the contrary, as had been proven regarding the history of a long series of the U.S.- led military interventions without excluding Russia from this cycle as well, that these overseas military operations mostly have been implemented away from the approval of supranational bodies, and have never brought about peace except if it was brought about through an understanding made by conflicting sides. 
However, I can't deny when NATO military interventions in Bosnia-Herzegovina contributed to trickling down the Serbian military power in favor of stricken Bosnian Muslim minority in 1995 and 1999 consecutively, which ended the bloodshed. 

The U.S. recent attack in Syria came to fulfill mainly the purpose of showing that the military balance is not overburdened in favor of Russia, we shall not forget that the U.S.A represents NATO in this region, and needless to explain the far-sighted goals of this military coalition. Consequently, the U.S. sixth fleet shouldn't miss out on the chance of showing off its muscles in the Mediterranean Sea.  

I, also, think that with this direct military confrontation with Russia doubles the intensity of military competition. For instance, Moscow straight away ordered more reinforcements for Syrian arsenal, on the other hand, U.S. Congress will keep organizing the same activities on the ground by pumping more weaponry into the cells of U.S.-led insurrectionist groups if there wouldn't be another direct well-backed military bombardment from the Meditteranean Sea again.
The scene of the Cold War is quite ostensible, who says that prolonged war ended long years ago with the collapse of former USSR?! It's baseless!
The question is, why doesn't the U.S.A. mobilize an international campaign for drumming up influential voices at U.N. or ICC ... etc, to finally decide on "No more Blood-socked war machines in Syria!" Didn't it peacefully intervene in Northern Ireland communal conflict when former president Clinton sent the United States Special Envoy for Northern Ireland in 1990s? Or this matter confined to the doctrine of conflict between interests and values in which the military choice always tops the list? Why peaceful choice is unlucky in managing the international crises? Or, rather than, when has peaceful choice been remarkable in the archives of history? maybe for very few times. 
The U.S. administration is carefully watching out how the phenomenon of Tomahawk will end up, the assumption is either the closest allies of Assad's regime back it up with high-range weaponry especially Moscow which will drift the situation out of well-meaning diplomatic control where a fierce fatal military confrontation will break out to include Moscow and Washington directly, or a rational solution will suddenly come about to end the crisis which I pretend the Sudanese the Sudanese Paradigm in 2011 would be reiterated in Syria. 
Taking a look at the military situation today, we stick up with the question, how will the crisis be resolved with the status quo? Who controls Syria today? it's incredible how has the terrorist Islamic State seized these formidable acres? Maybe Tomahawk arsenal would flip the situation over sooner or later to defeat ISIL? Then, what's the proposal to close down this bloody civil war?
Really, it's mind-boggling and I don't know how catastrophic the division would be if the grand sponsors of this war planning it where one of radical opposing factions will be a ruler side-by-side Assad who I think won't be ousted because he has been that role model ruler in the Middle East for many international aspects in terms of maintaining on security equation in this region since 1967. Therefore, it's uneasy to leave him. 

Source: Syria-war-map 2017

This is my analysis at the moment, hopefully, none of these imaginative potentials above will take place as analysists pretend. Otherwise, the inflammable situation is conducive to such tragic end.