All Policy Analysis by Jeffrey White

The complexities and dynamics of the Syrian conflict make it distinctly possible that Israel could become militarily involved -- even though none of the actors are interested in that outcome.

Assad is still standing, but he is not standing alone -- and he likely no longer makes decisions alone either.

The international conference on Syria is unlikely to make headway toward a transitional government and might instead undermine U.S. interests in ending the civil war.

Hizb Allah is the most effective force on the Syrian battlefield and has been instrumental in the preservation of the Assad regime and the success of its offensive operations since spring 2013.

Victory is not assured for the regime, but trends are moving in its favor.

Given the complexities and dynamics of the Syrian conflict, it is distinctly possible that Israel could be drawn into the fighting. Perhaps more important, the risk of spillover will likely extend years into the future, since the war's aftermath will not include near-term peace between Syria and Israel. How can

Eliminating Assad's chemical arsenal, while somewhat helpful, would do nothing to stem the more potent conventional means that his regular and irregular forces have used to kill thousands of civilians.

Washington Institute military expert Jeffrey White contributes to an online debate on the merits and goals of potential intervention.

Given the nature of the regime's passive defensive capabilities, a powerful U.S. operation of at least several rounds may be necessary.

Many options for direct military action in Syria have been on the table, ranging from token strikes with small numbers of weapons to much broader operations such as attacks on leadership targets or the imposition of no-fly and no-drive zones. In addition, the United States could respond indirectly by providing

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.