Intervention in Syria: Three Things to Know

Intervention in Syria: Three Things to Know

May 10, 2013 3:56 pm (EST)

Intervention in Syria: Three Things to Know
Explainer Video

Allegations that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against opposition fighters in recent weeks have led many policymakers to call for more assertive U.S. involvement in the country’s ongoing civil war. Matthew C. Waxman, CFR adjunct senior fellow for law and foreign policy, highlights three things that the United States must consider in weighing intervention in Syria:

More From Our Experts
  • Ending atrocities: The United States has an interest in stopping atrocities and mitigating the humanitarian crisis in Syria, but must consider whether this can be done through relatively limited U.S. military action, such as air strikes or a no-fly zone, Waxman says. Meanwhile, Washington should also safeguard the rights and safety of the population in the event that the Assad regime collapses.
  • Maintaining credibility: If the United States fails to intervene in response to the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons--the Obama administration’s "red line"--it could "signal a general lack of U.S. resolve," says Waxman. Engaging in "half measures" that fail to achieve U.S. objectives could similarly damage U.S. credibility, he argues.
  • Spillover effect: "The Syria crisis has implications for other critically important strategic challenges," including the ongoing U.S. conflict with al-Qaeda affiliates and Iran’s controversial nuclear program, Waxman says.

Top Stories on CFR


NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization)

The war in Ukraine marks a new era of instability in Europe. Countering Russia’s efforts will require a stronger, more coordinated NATO.


After the rise of Chinese power during the 2010s and failed U.S. policies in the Indo-Pacific, the United States should renew the Pivot to Asia and place the region at the center of its grand strategy.*