
If a Security Council resolution for a military intervention in Syria is not realistic politically, there are at least three other options.

A military strike on Syria might deter the Assad regime from using chemical weapons again, but it is unlikely to be a game changer in the course of the Syrian conflict.

The underlying argument is not over military tactics, but over how, and to what extent, the United States should involve itself in Syria’s civil, or intercommunal, war.

The pending U.S. action in Syria is intended to protect the president’s credibility as much as it is intended to protect the people of Syria.

The surprising endurance of the Iran-Syria alliance is made more striking by the fact that it is based on neither shared national interests nor religious values, but is rather a tactical-cum-strategic partnership between two authoritarian regimes.

The United States has deemed the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons as “undeniable" and has taken measures to possibly strike the country.

In Syria, the United States should plan a military action that would discourage Assad—or any other government under attack—from ever using chemical weapons again.

Investigation of chemical weapons use is in the interest of both the United States and Russia. Russia will continue to support Assad only if there is no evidence that he used chemical weapons.

In the aftermath of Morsi’s ouster, Muslim Brotherhood offshoots across the region seek to distance themselves from the “mother” organization—yet they all face the same fundamental challenges.

With Syrian rebel groups promising more attacks against Hezbollah in Lebanon, will domestic pressure eventually cause the Party of God to limit its aims in Syria?