Assad under pressure (Creative Commons)

Opinions about Obama’s plans for military intervention in Syria have been plentiful over the last few days. The discourse ranges from strong support for military intervention to nationwide protests against any military action in Syria. 

In order to have a full understanding of what a strike actually will encompass, we have to first be able to comprehend the potential benefits and drawbacks of such an attack. 

On Sunday, the International Crisis Group (ICG) produced a statement regarding Obama’s decision to use airstrikes on Syria. The report concludes that the recent debates around the topic regarding issues such as scope and legitimacy in the absence of UN Security Council approval have diverted from what should be the real focus at hand: how to initiate a search for a political solution.

The report stresses that although issues of legality are significant, any military action “should be judged based on whether it advances that goal or further postpones it.”

Many are skeptical that a military strike could change the balance of power on the ground, especially without a clear plan of action that builds on any notion of political stalemate. 

Despite this, however, Syrian-Americans who have friends and family in Syria believe that there is an urgent need to somehow break the status quo.

“The way people feel here when I ask them is they want someone to intervene, anyone to change the stalemate,” says Sabreen Shalabi, a Syrian-American from Orange County who has moved to Jordan to work with refugees who fled Syria. “Bashar has caused so much damage that they don't care if there’s more damage. I just don't want to see people dying at the hands of Assad anymore.”

With unpredictable consequences, it is difficult for many Syrian-Americans who have families back home to judge the usefulness (or the lack of it) of a military strike. 

“The consequences could be drastic, especially considering the regime's willingness to hit hard at civilian areas which it very likely will do as a response,” says University of California, Los Angeles student, Lilah Khoja, whose family also comes from Syria. “Looking at the language surrounding the possibility of strikes on Syria, they seem to point at punitive strikes, that are not meant to remove the regime, or even incapacitate it greatly. I don't believe there are any benefits necessarily as it seems the US wants to push the regime and opposition to negotiate, and I don't believe in a political negotiation.”

According to the ICG report, U.S. strikes on Syria could trigger violent escalation within Syria as the regime might try to take revenge on rebels, as the other side will seek the opportunity to increase its gains. 

“There are no words to explain how it feels to watch your country burning and falling. Watching Syrians killing Syrians is like having two children you love hurting each other daily,” explains a Syrian-American student at University of California, Santa Cruz, who chose to remain anonymous due to fear for her family’s safety back in Syria. “Not one single Syrian in this whole world agrees with a strike on our country but we also cannot watch the internal strikes everyday so we hope that maybe a strike on weapons and military zones ONLY will improve the situation by getting the government to stop massacring its own people."

"The consequences could be a regional war but intervention is critical at this point, the world cannot go one watching and hoping that things will get better," she added.

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