Some observers adopt an approach to the conflict in Syria similar to Henry Kissinger’s view of the Iran-Iraq War—that the best outcome would be for both sides to lose. There are two problems with this approach. The first is that the Syrian civil war’s effect on the outside world will not be decided by a simplistic binary view of who wins or loses, but by its continuing destabilizing and radicalizing effect on the region. To have the war continue indefinitely at a high intensity is a recipe for a profound regional destabilization from which many more people and governments will emerge as losers than merely the regime and the Islamist elements of the rebel forces. The second problem is that it is clear that the conflict cannot continue at such high intensity indefinitely anyway, and so eventually a political settlement will have to be reached. When this moment comes, it would be best to have at least some seats at the bargaining table occupied by persons other than regime loyalists and Islamist militants.

The latest moves towards intervention are part of an inevitable trend whereby the United States will be sucked further and further into the Syrian conflict. It is highly unlikely that a “one-off” series of strikes will be the end of it. It would befit the Obama administration to recognize this and to design a comprehensive strategy for intervention before things get even worse. After all, what happens in the heart of a changing Middle East has everything to do with us—and with American power.

Andrew Gawthorpe is a teaching fellow at the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom. The views expressed in this article are his own.