http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/world/middleeast/mideast-turmoil-heats-up-debate-on-us-intervening-in-syria.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&ref=world
The question of whether or not the U.S. should intervene in Syria has only been sharpened with the recent events that have taken place in the middle east. There are two opposing sides to this argument. There is a side that believes the U.S. should stay out of Syria, and those that believe U.S. intervention is necessary in Syria. The reasons that some believe we should stay out of Syria are all centered around the stability of the country. The first question they ask is why should we seek to depose a leader who has managed to keep a growing jihadi presence in check. The other main reason they want to stay out of the conflict is because the U.S. can't be sure which rebel groups have ties to Al Qaeda and which ones don't. Those in favor of stepping in and intervening in Syria believe the U.S. should because of the country's ties with Iran. If the U.S. were able to weaken Tehran, Iran would in turn be weakened. This weakening of both countries would also aid the U.S. and its current predicament with Israel.
I believe the U.S. should step in and intervene, if not on a military level, definitely on an aggressive diplomatic stance. By intervening, the U.S. stands to gain an ally with Syria, help weaken Iran, and strengthen ties with Israel. The article brings Russia into the picture as a deterent for U.S. intervention, but I don't believe Syria is important enough to Russia for Russia to become a major problem for the U.S.
