President Obama's move to seek congressional approval of US military action in Syria is important on constitutional grounds in that it gives the American people an opportunity to stop it. Other than being illegal under UN Charter Article 2[4][7], 51, 42, and Article VI of the US Constitution, a US military intervention will also contribute to the strengthening of the Syrian regime. Here is how.

Bashar al-Assad (Creative Commons)

1.  Rallying-around-the-flag effect will give Assad increased political support at home.
Any time a country is attacked from the outside, there is a rallying-around-the-flag effect and this would be particularly true in Syria as the US attack would play right into Assad's narrative that Syria is the bastion of Arab nationalism resisting Western Imperialism. US support for the over 40 years of Israeli occupation of Syria's Golan Heights, repeated attacks by US navy jets of Syrian positions in Lebanon in the 1980s, and the raid by US army commandoes on a border village in eastern Syria in 2008 has led to enormous resentment towards the US even by opponents of the regime. The Assad government still has the support of a substantial minority of Syrians (most notably due to growing influence of Salafi extremists among the rebels) and for decades the regime has successfully manipulated Syrian people's strong sense of nationalism into support for his rule.

2. 'Nothing left to loose' mentality will encourage stronger use of force.
Believing that it no longer has anything to lose, the Syrian regime will dramatically escalate violence against the rebels. Studies demonstrate that military intervention triggers a "gloves off" approach as the party of target believes that it will have to fight as hard as possible through any means possible. Despite the already bloody conflict, Assad could escalate the use of violence even more in a hope to gain upper hand in midst of intervention, prolonging the conflict.

3. Military attack may result in retaliatory actions by the regime, Iran, or Hezbollah.
In addition to prolonging conflicts, foreign intervention conflicts also make regional consequences more serious than if there was no military intervention. The International Crisis Group noted that it could "trigger violent escalation within Syria as the regime might exact revenge on rebels and rebel-held areas." Moreover, depending on the scale of the US strikes, even result in "retaliatory actions by Iran or Hezbollah."

4. US attack on Syria would more likely harden the attitude of the regime and its international supporters.
The Assad regime as well as its international supports would take a more hardline attitude in terms of a negotiated settlement, unless an attack is harmful enough to motivate compromise but not so devastating to prompt retaliation. This combination, however, would be extremely difficult to calibrate.

 
5. Military intervention would demoralize and disempower those remaining in the nonviolent resistance.
In March 2011, the Syrian revolution began with broad-based nonviolent pro-democracy struggle. When the opposition turned to a predominantly armed struggle by early the following year, it resulted in substantially higher civilian casualties. A military intervention would further sideline the remaining nonviolent resistance camp which creates credibility for an opposition that is increasingly violent and has anti-democratic elements.

Reach Executive Producer Syuzanna Petrosyan here. Follow her on Twitter.