Welcome back teachers and students!  Please note that the “Daily News Article” generally focuses on national news.  However, in an attempt to give you an overview on events in the Middle East, we are posting several articles this week on the ongoing crises in Egypt (see Monday) and Syria. (Also, check out “Background” and “Resources” below the questions each day.)

1. Why is the Obama administration preparing to take action against Syria - what did the Syrian government do? What had President Obama warned last year? [see para. 1, 19-20]

2. Why won't any international military action take place before at least Thursday?

3. The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is charged with the maintenance of international peace and security. Its powers include the establishment of peacekeeping operations, the establishment of international sanctions, and the authorization of military action. Its powers are exercised through United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
If this is the case, why won't the U.N. take any action against the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons against its citizens?

4. What two factors will influence the timing of a U.S. strike against Syria?

5. a) What type of action is President Obama expected to order against Syria?
b) What actions has he ruled out?

6. From the WSJ editorial "Why Obama Is Being Pulled Into Syrian Conflict"
"President Obama has said it wouldn't be acceptable for Syria to use chemical weapons, just as he has said it wouldn't be acceptable for Iran to develop nuclear weapons. He now must ponder whether the credibility of the first statement will affect the credibility of the second. That question burns particularly hot as the administration considers entering nuclear talks with the government of Iran's new president, Hasan Rouhani, even as Iran continues to deny it has nuclear-arms ambitions."
Should President Obama have issued these warnings to Syria and Iran if he was not prepared to take action? Explain your answer.

CHALLENGE QUESTION:  Reuters reports: "Without some action soon, officials worry that Assad will feel he can resort to chemical weapons again with impunity - a year after Obama declared their use of a "red line" that, if crossed, would require strong action. Some also fear inaction in Syria could cast doubt over other U.S. "red lines." encouraging Iran to pursue a nuclear program which Tehran says is peaceful but the United States and its allies including Israel believe aims to produce weapons."
Read the commentaries under "Resources" below. 
a) What would be the consequences of doing nothing?
b) What would be the consequences of intentionally (or unintentionally) removing Bashar Assad from power?
c) What action, if any, do you think the U.S. should take?  Explain your answer. 

NOTE:  “Answers by Email” will resume September 3rd.  Sign-up now.