Humanitarian Relief Organizations Research Links direct volunteers and donors to organizations that provide assistance during humanitarian crises.

A reported devastating chemical weapons attack stirs new debate in Washington and global capitals about intervention in Syria. This Issue Guide provides background and analysis.

Laurie Garrett says before American cruise missiles reach their targets, serveral diplomatic steps must be taken in order to stop the further use of nerve gases by the Syrian regime against its own people and prevent the use of chemical weapons from becoming the region's "new normal."

Any external military intervention in Syria in response to government use of chemical weapons will require persuasive arguments to prove legitimacy, says CFR's Matthew Waxman.

In light of chemical weapons attacks in Syria, Stewart Patrick explains why holding the line on their further use is essential to preserving the prohibition regime.

To stop Syria's meltdown and contain its mushrooming threats, the United States should launch a partial military intervention aimed at pushing all sides to the negotiating table.

Global support for the "responsibility to protect" doctrine weakened after the UN-endorsed no-fly zone that helped topple Libya's regime, and debate continues over the threshold for mounting armed humanitarian interventions, explains this Backgrounder.

According to Micah Zenko, "We are deluding ourselves if we believe that we need more time to "think through" U.S. military intervention options for Syria. We have an excellent understanding of what those options are, and a vast majority of officials, policymakers, and the American people do not believe they are worth the effort."

Robert Danin writes that the United States should send weapons to rebel forces in Syria.

If the United States chooses to intervene in Syria, "there is no easy solution or middle ground," according to Ray Takeyh.

A number of countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Turkey, and Qatar, have been providing support to the opposition in various forms, ranging from humanitarian aid to military supplies, such as weapons, armor, and communication devices. However, these efforts have not been enough to turn the tide, and after three years of fighting, a diplomatic solution still seems unlikely.

Read full answer

Micah Zenko weighs the options on a United States intervention in Syria.

Michael Scott Doran and Max Boot lay out five reasons for why the United States should intervene in Syria, arguing that President Obama is forgoing his "lead from behind" approach where it would benefit the United States the most.

Following a UN Security Council veto, the United States should bypass the UN to pressure the Assad regime and support the Syrian opposition, writes CFR President Richard N. Haass.

Intensification of the violence in Syria presents renewed cause for military intervention, either to protect innocent civilian lives or to potentially police or enforce a peace agreement or political settlement, says CFR's Paul Stares.

Julia E. Sweig dissects the international quandary over the humanitarian implications of violence in Syria.

The weekend massacre near Houla that has galvanized international outrage may spark a stronger Russian stand against the Assad regime, says Syria expert Mona Yacoubian.

President Obama's move to strengthen efforts to prevent genocide and mass killings deserves credit, but must be given time to work properly, says CFR's Paul Stares.

Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics and Chair of Mid-Eastern Studies at the University of San Francisco, says rather than military intervention, nonviolent resistance combined with targeted international sanctions will force the Syrian government to negotiate with the opposition for a transfer of power to a democratic majority.

The government of the brittle, one-party state remains dug in against a determined but fractured opposition. Expert Joshua Landis discusses the fault lines in the Syria uprising.