سوريا

If the United States strikes, it needs to choose targets and weapon systems based on a strategic plan that is well explained to the world.

Experts discuss the nature and capabilities of Syria's various rebel groups and assess U.S. options for shifting the strategic landscape beyond punitive strikes.

On August 28, 2013, the International Atomic Energy Agency released its latest reports on Iran and Syria. The Iran report assesses the status of the regime's nuclear activities and the agency's efforts to implement a safeguards agreement. The Syria report discusses the alleged nuclear site at Dair Alzour, destroyed by

The war in Syria has exposed the group's true strategic interests, which it has sought to secure through heavy involvement in the fighting.

As Washington considers military action in Syria, the temptation will be to pursue a limited punitive response to regime chemical-weapons use, rather than a campaign to achieve the administration's stated goal of Bashar al-Assad's removal. Giving in to that temptation would be a mistake.

There is ample justification for intervention in Syria once U.S. strategic interests are factored into the equation, regardless of the chemical red line.

The regime's cadres have held together through two years of war, and they will likely continue doing so unless Washington and its allies present them with a stark choice: leave and live, or stay and die.

U.S. backsliding on redlines regarding Syrian chemical weapons only encourages the Assad regime to make choices that increase the likelihood of direct U.S. intervention.

If the regime wins, as seems increasingly likely, post-war Syria will be a more brutal and anarchic place than ever before.