Issues involving international politics are very complex, so much so that I tend to abstain from commenting on them. Occasionally a situation will arise where the outcome is so ubiquitously damaging that even the lay-observer, such as myself, can wholeheartedly admonish the people to fight against it. 
Attacking Syria, no matter how limited an action, is an unequivocally bad idea. The Syrian civil war is entering its second year. To the end of claiming on which side the moral mandate lies, I cannot comment.
Suffice it to say that America passively supports the splintered offshoot of the Syrian military rebelling against the government, who are labeled as “freedom fighters.” The situation gets more complex when taking into account that, according to the Institute for the Study of War, Jabhat Al-Nusra has allied with the Syrian rebels. Al-Nusra is an Al-Qaeda branch.
The Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, is being accused of using chemical warfare on civilians, an action that President Barack Obama is taking it upon himself to respond to. A military strike on Syria would essentially turn the world against us.
The country with the largest dog in this fight is Iran. Surrounded by Shi’ite-led nations, Iran and Syria have found solace and an alliance in their close religious ideologies.
Furthermore, in 2006 the two countries signed a defense treaty with one another. Iranian defense minister Mustafa Mohammad Najjar is quoted by the World Defense Network as saying that Iran “considers Syria’s security its own security.” Therefore, an attack on Syria would inevitably be considered a provocation on Iran, a course of action to be avoided with all fervor.
Antagonizing Iran would lead to a world of trouble — literally, a world. The five heavy hitters on the global stage are the five permanent members on the U.N. security council: France, the U.K., China, Russia and the United States. The U.K. has already pledged their non-support with Parliament voting against taking action in Syria. To understand the truly contrite nature of the situation, one must take a look at where the other nations’ interests lie.
Like most developed nations, China has interest in the Middle East. China is Syria’s third largest importer of goods, a trade deficit bringing China over $2 billion of revenue, according to the European trade commission. Furthermore, China receives about 10 percent of its oil from Iran, Syria’s closest ally. While that number may seem trifling, in perspective Saudi Arabia is only 18 percent of the world’s reserves, yet much tension lies there in the way of their diplomatic relations.
The other seat on the Security Council of whom we ought to be wary is Russia. According to Jerry Mankoff, Russia is supplying Syria with arms. The defense contracts Russia has with the troubled state is reputed to be over $4 billion. But again, all roads lead back to Iran. Russia and Iran have a nuanced but fairly amicable relationship.
They trade together from all sectors of the economy, but especially dealing in arms, energy, and agriculture. According to a Turquoise Partners report, Russia and Iran are contemplating a joint oil venture that could produce somewhere in the ballpark of 150 million barrels of oil a day, which would make them market juggernauts.
I am not a fan of the wholesale slaughter of civilians in the time of war. But I am also not fond of upsetting the precarious pinhead upon which this brief respite from international threat of destruction rests.
I also don’t want to see this country condemned on the world stage or put itself in a position to have to defend itself from at least two of the heaviest hitters on the international block. If there is any alternative to a military strike, it is imperative that we find it. Any semblance of world peace may depend on it.