How Much Of A Threat Are Syria’s Missiles?

Not as ominous as many hawks are suggesting:

Israel may have attacked targets in Syria — and risked a wider war — to stop ballistic missiles from falling into the hands of Islamic extremists. But current and former Israeli missile defense officials insist that if Hezbollah militants ever got the Fateh-110 weapons, Israel could shoot the missiles out of the sky. “We are now able to cope with all the missiles that are threatening Israel right now, including the longer-range missiles in Iran and in Syria,” Arieh Herzog, the former director of the Israel Missile Defense Organization, tells Danger Room. …

Which begs the question: Why chance a broader war in order to stop the weapons?

Because Netanyahu is scrambling to find a way to launch a non-covert war against Iran? Because he’s taunting them? I don’t know – but I wouldn’t put that past him. Meanwhile, this passage from Dexter Filkins’ must-read strikes me as central to any debate about military intervention in Syria:

Assad’s chemical arsenal is spread across the country, much of it in populated areas; an effective military strike against it would need to be huge, and meticulously coördinated, to make sure that no toxins were released into the air or into enemy control. Samore told me, “It’s really a nightmare military scenario.’’ As the regime has traded ground with the rebels, some of Assad’s chemical weapons have been moved, and it is not clear where all of them are. “The intelligence people told us that their visibility is basically zero on some of these weapons, that we’re not going to know until after they have been used—if then,’’ the Senate aide told me.

How is that in any way a solvable problem? Militarily or any other way?