Iran is attempting to find an effective defense against Israeli aggression. Israel is known to attack various nations around the area, including Syria, without provocation. If any other nation acted like Israel we would brand it as “rogue”.

Israel has nuclear weapons, is a rogue nation, and Iran would seem to have every right to do what it had to defend itself. No nation with nukes has ever been attacked.

I don’t see Syria as a “test” of the US at all. Even a little bit. And I don’t think that anyone would gauge the response or lack thereof as an indication of the US response to anything else.

Simply my arrogant opinion, though, based upon what is reported in the media and I believe that can be suspect.

The Iranians are watching this very closely. If we do nothing about Syria, they’re not very likely to take our threats and bluster about their nukes very seriously.

Punishing Syria may not stop Iran from deploying their WMDs, but failing to punish Syria will guarantee Iran will go ahead with their program.

What would we get for our intervention?
Thanks from the Syrians? What’s the history on that?
Thanks from the ROW? Probably not, and if so, so what?
A friendly ally in the area? Nope.

There’s no excuse for doing anything, and there’s no gain for it.
The

Obama bombed Libya without congressional approval, so it seems the precedent that concerns you has already been set. He could easily claim urgency based on potential loss of life from another chemical attack. Any quibble about the difference in Syria and Libya is just a quibble, IYAM.

IMO it should be a NATO approved action, if it is to be done at all. I am sick of our “allies” whining about unilateral action by us. If they want to save Syrian innocents let them get on board and ask us nicely. Okay, leave off the ask us nicely part, if you insist.

Goes without saying, for me, that it will be limited to air strikes. Loss of life and the loss of treasure makes ground war unthinkable if not for conquest or defense of our homeland.