Proliferation

Although a military response to Syria's August 21 chemical weapons attack is on hold, Washington can restore credibility and pressure by threatening to strike immediately if the Assad regime uses such weapons again.

As members of Congress consider President Obama’s request to undertake military action against the forces of President Bashar al-Assad, The Washington Institute presents the following guide to help Americans better understand the crisis in Syria. Since the outbreak of the Syrian civil war in2011, our experts have conducted extensive research

It is time to ask those who oppose Syria strikes if they are comfortable with a position that will likely rule out any diplomatic outcome on the Iranian nuclear program.

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.

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

If Washington and its allies decide to strike the Syrian regime in response to last week's chemical attack, they should strike hard, with the aim of achieving significant political and military effects.

The chemical weapons massacre in Damascus has mobilized Assad's foreign opponents, giving the United States a new reason and new partners for a more serious response.

If it becomes reasonably clear that the Assad regime was responsible for today's apparent chemical strikes, nothing less than direct military action will alter its calculus or prevent further massacres.

Institute counselor Dennis Ross addressed the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee's Stahl Center.