Should said strikes be launched and be successful, is the West willing to engage in a political process that may result in Assad remaining in power?
I ask this because it appears that the sticking point of the political process is Assad’s political fate. The U.S. and its allies want him out, while Russia and Iran (especially Iran) want him to stay.
The success of said strikes also relies on Russia and Iran not retaliating much, if at all.
Not saying it has no way of working, but I’m not sure how said strikes would significantly change the calculus of a potential political solution (a political solution is my preferred goal btw).
I think the main sticking point on the political process is Assad himself. He is unwilling to concede a thing, and as long as that remains to be the case, the parallel Russia, Iran, Turkey process will not create anything that resembles a return to normality. The thinking behind airstrikes actually focused on degrading Assad's offensive capabilities, would be to force him to consider those concessions, but in an environment where his entire regime would not collapse. I think the West to date has preferred the status quo, over a scenario of an armed rebel overthrow ( which is now dead). The bulk of Western military campaign in Syria was always focused on ISIS, and the logistical/arms support to the rebels was limited in comparison ( and by design.
Your questions are legit and debatable btw, there is fool proof scenario, but I just advanced an example to argue the "regime change" scenarios are hyperbolic in a situation where there are no active frontlines and no chance the West will consider a big number of boots on the ground.