In March 2011 tens of thousands of demonstrators took to the streets in Syria. The protestors were demanding political reforms, dissatisfied with the cruel and authoritarian regime of Bashar al-Assad, who has been in power for more than ten years, succeeding his father after a 30-year rule. The government responded by opening fire. Within a few months, a peaceful uprising grew into a full-scale civil war, which has lasted for more than two years and is unlikely to end soon. This August, the death toll in Syria has reached 100,000. More than a quarter of the 22 million population has been displaced, hundreds of thousands of refugees have left the country. The United States has been supporting the opposition, supplying it with food and medical aid, but refraining from military intervention and from providing the rebels with weapons. The Obama administration claimed that the US would not intervene unless it had strong evidence of chemical weapons used by the Assad regime. In June 2013, Washington concluded that chemical weapons, including nerve agent sarin, classified by The United Nations as a weapon of mass destruction, had been used. The White House announced for the first time in June that it was going to send weapons to the opposition. Congress vetoed this resolution. There are many reasons why the US should refrain from providing the opposition with weapons. Over the two years of military confrontation, the situation on the ground has become increasingly chaotic. It is important to understand that there is no united opposition capable of overthrowing / toppling Assad’s regime. Instead, there are different military groups, using terrorist methods against the government forces, as well as against each other. The most prominent of them, the Free Syrian Army, is not strong enough to defeat Assad’s forces. Even if the US provides the FSA with light weapons, this opposition group is outnumbered by hundreds of thousands against Assad’s army. Even according to the m