- The Guardian thinks the House of Commons vote against strikes 'raises the prospect of a redefinition of the Anglo-American "special relationship"'.
- According to the NY Times, the US will go ahead without Britain.
- 'France, which opposed the Iraq War but acted unilaterally in Mali earlier this year, is preparing its military to attack the Assad regime in Syria. What a role reversal. The British are the French, and the French are the British.'
- Opposition Leader Tony Abbott joins the Government in saying Australia should take no part in military action against Syria. He seems very cool on the idea of strikes.
- The Weekly Standard assembles sixty notable Americans to put their name to an open letter advocating military action against Syria.
- Seven scenarios for Syria's future.
- Political science research shows why 'credibility' is a terrible reason to go to war.
- The Middle East explained in one only slightly simplified map. (Thanks Fergus.)
- The FT has a huge collection of background reading.
- The US says the norm against chemical weapons must be enforced, but 'there are very few states that might consider using chemical weapons; and the conditions under which they would use them are very limited — and that’s despite the lack of norm enforcement.'
- Gareth Evans on the legalities of military intervention: 'The trouble is that even the most extreme breach of international law does not in itself legally authorise a coercive military response.'
Syria links: House of Commons, credibility, France-UK swap and more
Published 30 Aug 2013
Follow @SamRoggeveen
You may also be interested in
Although the US president has yet to set foot in Australia, Australian leaders have got Trump’s attention.
Post-election upheaval has drawn new attention to internal power struggles and the region’s geostrategic importance.