U.S. President Barack Obama indicated Friday he would soon conduct what he called "very limited" military action against Syria to punish its alleged use of chemical weapons which, according to the White House, killed more than 1,400 people in several Damascus suburbs last week.
If and when the United States launches a military attack on Syria, one of the biggest political losers would be the United Nations.
Now that we have heard Secretary of State John Kerry's emotional plea for us to believe the still rather ambiguous intelligence on chemical weapons use in Syria, there are far more substantive answers to be sought from the Obama administration.
When the administration of President George W. Bush launched a military attack on Iraq in March 2003, it was nearly 18 months before Kofi Annan, then-U.N. secretary-general, described the invasion as "illegal" and in "violation of the U.N. charter" because the United States did not have Security Council authorisation.
In an echo of the tactics they used to promote U.S. intervention in the Balkans, Iraq and Libya, a familiar clutch of neo-conservatives published a letter Tuesday urging President Barack Obama to go far beyond limited military strikes against Syria in retaliation for its government's alleged use last week of chemical weapons that reportedly killed hundreds of people.
While some kind of U.S. military action against Syria in the coming days appears increasingly inevitable, the debate over the why and how of such an attack has grown white hot here.
President Obama got it right. He was picked by U.S. voters to put the nation's interests first – not those of any ally, any member of Congress, or the media, even if they clamour for him to "do something" yet do not take responsibility for the consequences if things go wrong, as they have for some time in the Middle East.
Ten years after right-wing and liberal hawks came together to push the U.S. into invading Iraq, key members of the two groups appear to be reuniting behind stronger U.S. military intervention in Syria.
Despite renewed pressure by hawks in Congress and the media, U.S. President Barack Obama appears determined to avoid sharply escalating U.S. involvement in the ongoing civil war in Syria.
As the Syrian uprising enters its third year, the United States and its allies are preparing to materially increase their support of the armed opposition in Syria.
A Kenyan military advance into Somali territory to push back Islamic militants has had some measured military success - but is not without controversy.
As violence in Syria spikes after a short lull, the prospect of international military intervention appears to be growing by the day. Earlier this week, almost exactly one year after President Barack Obama first called on Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad to step down, Obama warned of "enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front or the use of chemical weapons".
Intervention in Syria was "only a matter of time", wrote Emile Nakhleh in February in the Financial Times. Seven months later, the fighting and divisions within Syria continue to worsen. Now, a diplomatic solution is no longer possible, Nakhleh, a retired CIA analyst, believes.