The recent tragic developments in Syria highlight a recurring and difficult question at the heart of U.S. foreign policy: Should America assume the role of global policeman, stepping into conflicts to shape the outcomes and uphold certain values, or should it prioritize its own national interests, limiting involvement in far-off disputes? This dilemma is far from theoretical; it cuts to the core of America’s identity and its place in the world. Both paths carry significant moral and practical implications, but neither offers an easy, clear-cut solution.

On the one hand, stepping into the role of the world’s policeman aligns with America’s historical legacy of promoting democracy, human rights, and stability. Many argue that as the world’s most powerful nation, the United States has a unique responsibility to prevent atrocities, counter terrorism, and ensure that despotic regimes do not dominate global geopolitics. From this perspective, intervening in Syria could send a strong signal to adversaries like Russia and Iran that the U.S. will not stand idly by while they expand their influence unchecked. Moreover, failing to act risks emboldening terrorist groups such as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, whose growth could spill over into neighboring regions and threaten global security.

On the other hand, America’s history in the Middle East serves as a sobering reminder of the perils of overreach. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan illustrate how easily well-intentioned interventions can devolve into costly, drawn-out conflicts that drain resources, destabilize regions, and ultimately fail to achieve their objectives. Focusing on Syria’s civil war could distract from pressing domestic issues and other international priorities, such as countering China’s rise or managing the war in Ukraine. Critics of intervention argue that America’s primary obligation is to its own citizens, and becoming entangled in another Middle Eastern conflict risks repeating past mistakes without guaranteeing a better outcome.

At its core, this debate forces Americans to wrestle with profound questions about morality and pragmatism. Does a failure to intervene in Syria make us complicit in the suffering of civilians or embolden adversaries who thrive in the absence of U.S. leadership? Or does restraint demonstrate wisdom, recognizing the limits of U.S. power and the futility of trying to solve complex regional problems with external force? These questions have no easy answers, but how America chooses to respond will shape both the region and the world for years to come.

A Christian Lens: Pray for Peace, Not Chaos

As Christians, we are called to be peacemakers, striving to bring reconciliation and justice into a broken world. Jesus teaches in Matthew 5:9, “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.” However, true peacemaking is not the same as passivity in the face of evil. Genuine peace requires confronting injustice and addressing suffering with both wisdom and courage. The ongoing conflict in Syria illustrates the complexities of living out this calling in a world filled with brutal realities.

The Syrian Civil War presents a stark moral challenge, as it pits evil against evil. On one side, Bashar al-Assad’s regime has waged a campaign of oppression and violence against its own people, using chemical weapons, indiscriminate bombing, and torture to crush dissent. On the other, groups like Hayat Tahrir al-Sham—an offshoot of al-Qaeda—have exploited the chaos to expand their power. These extremists do not stand for democracy, freedom, or human dignity; instead, they enforce their rule through terror, with no regard for the rights of minorities, women, or dissenters. Neither side offers a vision of justice or righteousness that aligns with biblical principles.

This is what makes Syria such a tragic “pick your poison” situation. If Assad remains in power, his reign of fear will continue, propped up by malign actors like Russia and Iran, whose influence fuels instability throughout the Middle East. But if Assad falls, the most likely replacement is not a coalition of peace-loving reformers but violent extremists who would plunge the nation into deeper chaos. This grim calculus forces us to confront an uncomfortable truth: sometimes, the choices in international conflicts are between bad and worse.

Yet as Christians, we cannot simply throw up our hands and walk away. Our faith calls us to seek justice, defend the oppressed, and promote peace wherever possible. Psalm 82:3 exhorts us to “Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.” In Syria, this means advocating for policies that protect innocent civilians, ensure access to humanitarian aid, and promote long-term stability, even if the path is difficult and imperfect. While we may not be able to bring an immediate end to the conflict, we can work to alleviate its human toll and prevent further escalation.

At the same time, this situation reminds us of the dangers of placing ultimate hope in political or military solutions. The root of Syria’s suffering is not just bad governance or extremist ideologies but the fallen nature of humanity. As Christians, we know that lasting peace and justice can only come through the transformative power of the Gospel. While we engage with the world’s problems, we must also pray fervently for God’s intervention, seeking His wisdom and guidance as we navigate these difficult choices. Only He can bring true healing to the people of Syria.

American Interests: A Limited Role, Not Endless Wars

America’s primary focus must always remain on its national security and the well-being of its citizens. This principle serves as a guardrail against overreach, ensuring that foreign entanglements do not come at the expense of our own strength and prosperity. The Syrian Civil War exemplifies the kind of quagmire that has historically drained resources, lives, and political capital with little to show in return. After over a decade of conflict, countless interventions by world powers, and shifting allegiances, Syria remains a fragmented and war-torn nation. America cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of Iraq and Afghanistan, where well-intentioned missions to promote stability and democracy devolved into prolonged, costly, and ultimately fruitless campaigns.

That said, America is not merely a bystander in the Middle East. The region is of strategic importance, and abandoning it entirely would carry significant risks. Our steadfast support for Israel, a vital ally and the region’s only stable democracy, is not only a moral obligation but also a practical necessity. Israel serves as a critical partner in countering terrorism, deterring adversaries like Iran, and promoting shared values of freedom and human rights. Any shift in U.S. policy must reaffirm our commitment to this essential relationship.

The renewed fighting in Syria also highlights the importance of America’s alliances with the Kurdish forces, who have proven themselves invaluable partners in the fight against ISIS. The Kurds were instrumental in dismantling the so-called caliphate, protecting regional stability, and reducing the threat of terrorism spreading beyond the Middle East. Yet they now find themselves caught in a precarious position, threatened by Turkish aggression and abandoned by many of their supposed allies. America must stand by these trusted partners, providing them with diplomatic, logistical, and, where appropriate, material support to ensure they are not swept aside in the regional power struggle.

Maintaining stability in the Middle East is not about engaging in nation-building or endless wars. It’s about smart, targeted actions that protect U.S. interests and allies while avoiding the pitfalls of overcommitment. In the case of Syria, this might mean supporting regional partners who share America’s goals of containing terrorism, curbing Iranian influence, and safeguarding Israel’s security, rather than becoming directly involved in another unwinnable war. By focusing on strategic partnerships and narrowly defined objectives, America can safeguard its interests without repeating the mistakes of the past.

Strategic Opportunities: Weakening Russia and Iran

Here’s where the situation becomes both an opportunity and a challenge. Bashar al-Assad’s regime relies heavily on the backing of Russia and Iran, which is both its strength and its Achilles’ heel. Assad’s dependence on these malign powers creates a strategic vulnerability that the U.S. can exploit. By increasing economic pressure on Syria through targeted sanctions, supporting moderate Arab states, and covertly assisting select opposition groups that oppose Assad without empowering Islamist extremists, America could disrupt the stranglehold that Moscow and Tehran have on the region. Such a strategy would strike at the core of two of America’s most dangerous adversaries while limiting the direct risks to U.S. forces.

Walter Russell Mead of the Wall Street Journal presents a compelling case for why now is the time to act. Russia’s military and economic resources are stretched thin due to its ongoing war in Ukraine. Vladimir Putin’s focus on his European front has left him less capable of shoring up allies like Assad, and this overextension presents a rare window of opportunity to weaken Russia’s influence in the Middle East. Simultaneously, Tehran faces its own economic challenges, including growing domestic unrest and the continued strain of international sanctions. A well-timed push against Assad could force Iran and Russia to divert resources and attention away from their broader ambitions, weakening their positions globally.

However, any strategy to exploit this situation must be executed with precision and prudence. History provides painful lessons about the unintended consequences of creating power vacuums in volatile regions. The collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq left a void that was quickly filled by insurgents and extremist groups like ISIS. A similar scenario in Syria could empower Hayat Tahrir al-Sham or other radical factions, leading to greater instability and violence.

To avoid such outcomes, the U.S. must carefully calibrate its actions. Economic sanctions should remain targeted, focusing on the Assad regime’s leadership and infrastructure while minimizing harm to civilians. Support for opposition groups should prioritize secular or moderate factions, ensuring aid does not fall into the hands of extremist forces. Additionally, Washington must work closely with regional allies, including moderate Arab states, to coordinate efforts and share intelligence. These nations have a vested interest in a stable, less Iran-dominated Syria and could play a critical role in countering Assad and his backers.

Finally, this strategy should not be viewed in isolation. It must align with broader U.S. goals in the Middle East, including safeguarding Israel’s security, curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and maintaining stability in energy markets. By leveraging Assad’s dependence on his foreign patrons while avoiding reckless overreach, the U.S. can weaken its adversaries, protect its interests, and contribute to a more stable regional order.

Conclusion: America’s Path Forward

The renewed fighting in Syria is a reminder of the Middle East’s enduring volatility. While the U.S. cannot fix Syria’s problems, it can take meaningful steps to protect its interests and alleviate human suffering.

1. Strengthen Support for Israel and the Kurds. Both are essential allies in maintaining regional stability and countering terrorism.
2. Exploit Opportunities to Undermine Russia and Iran. Targeted pressure on Assad’s regime can disrupt their influence without direct military intervention.
3. Maintain Targeted Sanctions While Expanding Humanitarian Aid. Sanctions should punish Assad without worsening civilian suffering. Aid must reach the most vulnerable.
4. Lead with Prudence and Compassion. The U.S. must act strategically, balancing justice with restraint.

As Psalm 34:14 reminds us, “Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it.” By combining strategic foresight with moral clarity, America can act as a force for stability and hope in a troubled region.