
For the moment, an idea that might ultimately seem to be in the interest of Obama, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and, arguably, the Syrian opposition has gained surprising traction.

Washington should endorse the Russian proposal and invest President Vladimir Putin’s prestige in winning Syria’s assent and full, timely implementation. Such an outcome would be better than military action and better than no action.

If the Syrian regime has decided it is going to give up its chemical weapons, the international community might want to revisit what happened to the chemical weapons stockpiles in Iraq after the 1991 conflict.

There is at least as good evidence against the United States administration’s claim of rising moderation in Syria as there is for it.

Russia’s position on Syria is based in large part on Moscow’s concerns about the political repercussions of intervention. At the G20 Summit, Vladimir Putin attempted to create a de facto referendum on intervention.

Though Putin purported to oppose any attempt to hijack the economic agenda of the G-20, he succeeded in setting the stage for a critical debate on U.S. foreign policy with the global leaders.

Azerbaijan, like all of Syria’s regional neighbors, is affected by the ongoing civil war there.

The presidency is a famously lonely job. But it takes hard work and some really bad decision-making to alienate nearly everyone along the entire political spectrum worldwide, as Obama has done with his missteps on Syria.

Syria may be Israel’s enemy, but its civil war ushers in greater threats.

A prolonged conflict in Syria may be the best way to ensure Israel's security.