At this weekend’s G20 summit, Russian President Vladimir Putin has invested a substantial amount of his time rallying nations to stand against American efforts to engage in military action against the Syrian regime of Bashar Assad. As of right now, it’s working, and I can imagine Barack Obama pouting in the dark somewhere, like Rihanna at the VMAs. Syria seems like it’s shaping up to be another Iraq. Yet again, large swaths of the international community are choosing to rebuke American military adventurism.

In an interview with ITV News International Editor Bill Neely, Syrian deputy foreign minister Dr Faisal Mekdad said a delay in US military action "shows that he [President Obama] and his administration are lost." "I hope there should be enough wise people in the Congress to make a decision like the House of Commons in the UK," he added. On the streets of Damascus, soldiers said they were ready for any attack. But many residents now believe America, like Britain, will not strike at all.

Part of President Barack Obama's argument for a military strike against Syria is a threat to broader U.S. security concerns in the Middle East and Asia. Secretary of State John Kerry says acting against Syria's use of chemical weapons matters far beyond its borders. "It is about whether Iran, which itself has been a victim of chemical weapons attacks, will now feel emboldened, in the absence of action, to obtain nuclear weapons," he said.

As a freshman US senator with his eye on the White House, Barack Obama said this: “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” Mr. Obama’s comment (which came in a 2007 interview with The Boston Globe) had to do with Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

Just because you should do something doesn't mean you ought to. That might sum up one way of thinking about whether the United States should bomb Syria in response to the horrific chemical weapons attack presumably launched by regime forces against civilians earlier this month.

The Syrian conflict is reaching critical mass. Reports of chemical weapons use by the Syrian government is forcing regional and global leaders, including the United States, to act. The UK parliament just gave an emphatic no to Prime Minister David Cameron's proposal for military intervention. Lines of varying color have been drawn and naval ships are on standby. Oh, and Russia is being Russia. So what are President Obama's options?

While some Americans put off getting back to work in earnest until after Labor Day, President Obama has already hit the ground running. His eight days of golf with buddies and bike rides with his family on the Massachusetts resort island of Martha’s Vineyard ended abruptly Sunday night when he returned to the White House. Confronting him now is an unusually large and difficult array of issues. And although more than three years remain in his presidency, what he does – or doesn’t do – to address them could go a long way toward determining his presidential legacy.

As the Egyptian military continues its bloody crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood and other protesters, U.S. President Barack Obama is facing a dwindling range of options for dealing with the crisis. Obama has, so far, refused to cut off U.S. aid to Egypt's interim government. The president has made it clear that his administration is rethinking its dealings with Egypt's military.