Last week I wrote about the options for military intervention in Syria, arguing that none of the proposals on the table guarantees a quick end to the uprising in the country, which partly explains why the West has been reluctant to push more aggressively against the Syrian regime (and its Russian backers).
The Houla massacre has renewed a debate on the merits of intervention in Syria. Have a look at these three most recent pieces of analysis:
- Rime Khallaf: The Financial Times columnist has made her first (as far as I know) direct appeal for establishment of NATO-protected zones inside Syria. Rime recognizes the risks but warns that inaction won't save Syria from a prolonged civil war - the humanitarian angle.
- James P. Rubin: Former Clinton administration official makes a forceful argument for airstrikes and material support for Syrian rebels. Read this if you want to know why the US is really contemplating the intervention: it's all about Israel and Iran.
- Joshua Landis: One of US top academic experts on Syria (with a great blog at Syria Comment) flashes the warning signs, saying the US has proven itself singularly unfit at managing transition from authoritarian regimes with a young population and broken economy.