投资者对叙利亚局势反应过度

    美国有可能对叙利亚展开军事打击，但市场的担心可能有些过头了。这场据报道最早可能于周四展开的军事打击，它的规模和力度很可能都非常有限，最终对已持续两年的叙利亚内战的结局影响很小，甚至几乎为零。

    目前，美国及其盟友（包括英国）只是想惩罚使用化学武器的叙利亚武装力量，并不准备推翻政权。军事打击很可能只是针对叙利亚的化学武器兵工厂和弹药库，会避开其他军事目标。这样的打击固然不容小觑，但比起2003年美军对伊拉克周边实施的灾难性和耗费大量金钱的占领时所谓的“震慑”战术还是差远了，不太可能对世界经济或石油供给产生负面影响。

    上周，美国可能准备对叙利亚展开军事打击的消息传来时，市场情绪低落。道琼斯工业指数本周已跌去200多点，石油价格则反弹到了2012年2月以来的最高水平。那些本周没在度假的交易员们担心，美国可能很快就会再一次地卷入一场战争，导致经济增长消失，耗费巨额资金。他们还担心，这样的一场战争可能对中东石油外供造成负面影响。

    股市和商品市场出现的如此剧烈的波动，似乎美国马上就要准备大规模入侵并占领叙利亚这个饱受战乱之苦的国家，但现在的情况并非如此。美国军队的行动从不会零星展开。如果它真的准备很快发动市场担心的那类入侵，它应该早已调遣了很多军队到邻国约旦。

    事实上，目前看来美国更可能准备展开有限的空中打击，并没有动用地面部队的想法。不是军事专家也能明白这一点；美国五角大楼在7月19日提交给参议院军事委员会（Senate Armed Services Committee）的信件中早已列出了两种可能采取的行动计划。它们都指向有限的空中打击：A计划只瞄准叙利亚的化学武器兵工厂和弹药库，同时设立一个禁飞区；B计划瞄准更广泛的打击目标，旨在削弱叙利亚政府打内战的能力。

    目前，看起来几乎可以肯定的是，美国会选择A计划，只瞄准叙利亚的化学武器设施。A计划的成本远低于B计划，在这个国家维持一个禁飞区每个月只需10亿美元；而如果要彻底铲除叙利亚政府可能需要几十亿美元。

    当然，A计划也不是轻轻松松。虽然如此，但如果目前停泊在东地中海的4艘美国军舰发射数百枚巡航导弹，叙利亚不太可能进行有效的防御。他们甚至都无法探测到B2隐形轰炸机，而这些轰炸机可以使用碉堡克星炸弹，摧毁整个叙利亚的地下化学武器储备。

    奥巴马政府当前显然是在犹豫，是否要踏入另一场中东冲突的泥沼，特别是对于一个没有多少可靠资源（石油）的国家。而且，由于俄罗斯与现任叙利亚政府保持着牢固的关系，如果全面入侵，也需要获得俄罗斯的支持。俄罗斯是叙利亚在中东之外最紧密的盟友，而且它在叙利亚还拥有一个海军基地。目前俄罗斯仍不愿支持政权更迭，使得很多欧洲国家也很难加入美国阵营，担心可能伤害它们与最大邻国的关系。

    Market fears concerning a possible U.S. strike on Syria seem overdone. An attack, which could reportedly occur as early as Thursday, would most likely be limited in both scale and scope, ultimately having little to no impact on the outcome of the now two-year-long Syrian civil war.

    At this point, the U.S. and its allies, including Great Britain, are simply looking to punish Syrian forces for using chemical weapons and are not committed to overthrowing the regime. Any attack will most likely consist of small surgical strikes on Syria's chemical weapon arsenal and would avoid other military targets. While such strikes are both serious and scary, they are a far cry from the so-called "shock and awe" tactics that led to the disastrous and financially-draining occupation of neighboring Iraq in 2003 and are unlikely to have a negative impact on the world economy or oil flows.

    The markets weren't too happy to learn on Monday that the U.S. was possibly gearing up for a military assault on Syria. The Dow Jones Industrial Index shed over 200 points on the week while oil prices rallied to their highest level since February of 2012. Traders -- those who aren't on vacation this week -- are concerned that the U.S. is about to get itself, once again, wrapped up in a growth-killing and cash-sucking war. They also seem concerned that such an engagement could negatively impact the flow of oil out of the Middle East.

    Such sharp moves in the equity and commodity markets make it seem as if the U.S. was preparing for a large scale invasion and occupation of the war-torn country, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. The U.S. military never does things piecemeal. If it were truly gearing up for the type of invasion that the markets fear could be at hand then it would have moved a great deal more troops into neighboring Jordan.

    Indeed, at this point it is far more likely that the U.S. is gearing up for a limited air assault with no intention of moving in ground troops. One doesn't have to be a military expert to figure this out; the Pentagon has already outlined two possible courses of action in a July 19th letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee. The two scenarios both call for limited air engagements, with Plan A solely targeting Syria's chemical weapons arsenal and maintaining a no-fly zone, while Plan B would hit a wider array of targets aimed at crippling the Syrian government's ability to fight the civil war.

    It appears all but certain at this point that the U.S. is opting for Plan A and will just be targeting Syria's chemical weapons complex. Plan A is far cheaper than plan B, costing just $1 billion a month to maintain a no fly zone in the country compared to the billions needed to take Syria's government completely out from the air.

    To be sure, Plan A is no walk in the park. Nevertheless it is unlikely that Syria could mount an effective defense against the hundreds of cruise missiles coming from the four U.S. warships currently in the eastern Mediterranean. Nor could they even detect the B2 stealth bombers that could use bunker busting bombs to knock out underground chemical weapon storage lockers throughout the country.

    The Obama administration is clearly hesitant to get bogged down in yet another conflict in the Middle East, especially in a country with little in the way of bankable resources, i.e. oil. Furthermore, a total invasion would need the support of Russia as they maintain a strong relationship with Syria's current government. Russia is Syria's closest ally outside the Middle East and it maintains a naval base in the country. At this point Russia remains unwilling to support regime change , making it very difficult for many European countries to jump on the U.S. bandwagon as they fear it would jeopardize their relationship with their largest neighbor.