The Syrian crisis has lasted longer and involved more outside interests than any of the recent flare-ups in the Middle East. Located in the heart of the Arab world, Syria was once a French colony. During the Cold War, it was under the Soviet Union's influence. With its complicated ethnic and religious makeup, special relationship with Lebanon and alliance with Iran, Syria has long been a source of trouble for the West.

Possible consequences

Although Washington claimed the military strike would be limited, observers warned that once the United States launches military intervention, it must pay a financial and diplomatic price. They predicted that the regional situation in Syria and the Middle East would become more complicated, and China should take on more responsibilities as an influential power.

Liu pointed out two reasons as to why Obama has not launched the military strike yet: First is the needed U.S. congressional authority, and second is the UN investigation report. If Obama conducts the air strike without UN authority, then his action's validity will be questioned. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon warned on September 4 that a rush to strike Syria should be restrained until the UN investigation into Syria's alleged use of chemical weapons is completed.

Liu went on to note that before the Iraq war, the United States similarly accused Saddam Hussein of having weapons of mass destruction, but that accusation was never proven. Obama's proposal to adopt military intervention might yet trigger new rounds of anti-war demonstrations.

Moreover, the White House proposal to take military action against Syria has been strongly opposed inside the United States. A survey carried out by the Pew Research Center over the weekend found that 48 percent of Americans oppose "conducting military air strikes" against Syria compared to 29 percent who support such an action.

Many Americans believe their country has spent too much money in the Middle East during the past 10 years. Statistics show that the United States spent over $1.6 trillion in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from 2002 to 2008. Observers said that Washington might engage Syria in a "limited" intervention similar to that in Kosovo under the Bill Clinton administration. During the Kosovo War in 1999, NATO used 1,200 fighters, 1,500 more cruise missiles and over 13,000 tons of ammunition, at a total cost of $100 billion.

Although the United States has begun to recover from the financial crisis, it has yet to cut down on various expenses to cope with current financial difficulties. According to reports from Stars and Stripes, the country had decided to cut $500 billion from its defense budget during 2013-21, of which $46 billion in cuts will come in the next seven months. The U.S. Government's proposed expenditure for incidental military operations overseas in 2013 is only $88.4 billion. Under the twin pressures of slow economic growth and growing defense costs, will the United States dare to challenge its citizens' anti-war sentiment and its financial dilemma to start a new war in a country thousands of miles away?

Liu Li, another researcher on Middle East studies with CIIS, said the turmoil that began in the Middle East two years ago has become a fight over regional control and strategic interests. A larger crisis could be looming in the Middle East.

Once the U.S. military strikes occur, millions of Syrian refugees will rush to neighboring states, causing a heavy financial toll. In addition, the refugees of different ethnic groups and religious sects could further strain the fragile political and religious balance in the region.

Liu explained that Syria is relevant to different powers' interests for historical reasons. Western countries headed by France and the United States will compete with Russia for geostrategic interests and regional influences. Moreover, if the Assad administration is toppled, the country will descend into endless ethnic and religious strife. Ultimately, Western countries will have to have a showdown with Syria's neighbor and ally, Iran.

China continually insists on its policy of non-intervention in the Middle East affairs, though some have argued that China should play a more active role in this region due to its growing influence on the world stage.

Syria is not such a far distance from China. The crisis in Syria has influenced the stability of west China, Liu said, suggesting that China should strengthen communications with other powers to guarantee the strategic security and stability in its western areas.

Yin Gang, a researcher on Middle East studies from the CASS, said that if Syria undergoes major turbulence, a chain reaction could follow that would alter the entire region, and China's interests would be damaged. Currently, China's investment and cooperative stakes in Syria are at risk of taking huge losses. Moreover, China's reliance on energy resources in the Middle East has been on the rise with its economic growth. "Like it or not, China is bound to become more involved in the Middle East affairs," he concluded.