The world community possesses the ability to end the abominable war in Syria. The only question is whether it possesses the will to do it.
Due to Cameron's parliamentary majority and the disunity of the opposition, the Conservative approach of British military escalation in Syria will likely be implemented. But the impact of these military activities is unclear.
What is most diabolical about Putin's orchestrated defense of Assad wrapped in an anti-ISIS appeal is how much his brazen assessment is gaining traction in the least likely of places -- western Europe.
The fight against ISIS is not going well. In Iraq, the Obama Administration's declared main theater of the battle, an anti-ISIS military offensive has stalled amid allegations of politicized intelligence.
Both President Obama and President Putin addressed the tragic problems in Syria during their speeches at the United Nations. While they both want to destroy ISIS the difference in their views of how to deal with the failing nation of Syria and the horrors of ISIS is clear.
There appears to be a gaping flaw in Russia's agenda if, indeed, it is based on promoting the safety and security of the Syrian people. Putin's posturing on his Western flank over the last two years might reveal a renewed desire to protect regional strategic assets.
What started as a civil war in Syria nearly five years ago has now evolved into an international crisis unmatched by any other since World War II. The global community now has a solemn obligation to end this humanitarian disaster, but it cannot do so unless all the powers affected by the conflict set aside their differences.
Saying that ISIS is a priority threat is ludicrous. It is a threat that needs to be eradicated immediately. But developments in Syria are not separate incidents divorced from each other. Every major movement in the country is closely linked.
Iran has two national security camps. The first is concerned with threats to Iran's revolutionary ideology and values, while the second is concerned with perceived threats to Iran's national security and interests. Iran's foreign policy is a function of who wins the argument of the day.
President Obama may have prevailed in his efforts to thwart a Congressional resolution of disapproval against the Iran nuclear agreement, but if a Congressional vote were to occur against his Syria policy he would lose hands down in a total bi-partisan meltdown.
MOSCOW -- Will Syria become a second Afghanistan for Russia? Is it wise for Russia to intervene in that conflict? Rumors are circulating that Moscow is planning a face-saving maneuver whereby it gradually "hands over" the Donbass in fulfillment of the Minsk agreement while aiding the U.S.-led anti-Islamic State coalition in Syria to get back on good terms with the West. The plan sounds good in theory, but it looks unfeasible in practice.
My question to those who still believe in the Putin myth of infallibility is this: why did the Russian president recently decide on sending his armed forces to Syria to participate in that sad country's interminable and ever more bloody civil war?
As nationalism may seduce the masses, so may vanity have the same effect upon individual diplomats engaged in conflict resolution. While some may debate what strategic interests, conspiracies or prejudices are at play in motivating policy, too frequently it may be the egos of the personalities involved.
According to the defense minister, Australia will somehow be able to bomb ISIS targets in eastern Syria without becoming involved in the broader Syrian conflict.
Human rights have been a curious case when it comes to the UAE and the other Gulf Arab states for quite some time. The most widely reported concerns in the Emirates have had to do with workers in Dubai, the UAE's second city.
The most catastrophic of all is when a whole generation of young Syrians is lost as it bears long-term disastrous consequences from which the Syrian people will suffer for decades to come.