With the United States military preparing for possible strikes against Syrian armed forces, there is justifiably increased interest in and a lot of unanswered questions about the conflict in Syria and what the role of the United States should be regarding it. With Russia sticking its neck out for its little Middle Eastern ally, our response should be a neutral one: punishment for Assad for using chemical weapons against his opponents while also maintaining objectivity in the conflict.

Let’s start with some background. Conflict in Syria – and in more or less any other Middle Eastern country – has been an issue since the 1920s, when European colonial powers split the region with borders that mixed and matched incredibly diverse cultures.

However, the source of the current conflict in Syria can be traced back to early 2011 when, inspired by other countries rising against their governments in a movement now known as the Arab Spring, citizens of Syria began peacefully protesting the harshly oppressive dictator Bashar Al-Assad. At first, pro-Assad forces quietly killed protesters and their families, but as protesters began lashing back, the clashes became more and more violent until the government was shelling neighborhoods and leveling entire city blocks full of rebels and uninvolved civilians alike.

Recently, the UN found evidence that the regime broke international law by using chemical agents against areas thought to be rebel strongholds, affecting civilians as well as anti-government fighters. This is the most prominent reason that the Obama administration feels the need to respond with military action and an act that raises many questions about the moral responsibilities of the U.S. abroad.

So, how should we respond? I’ll put it as bluntly as possible. Unless Syria follows through with handing over control of its chemical weapons, a series of military strikes is currently the best option available. Primarily, it could make the conflict in Syria less horrific.

Assad will be less inclined to use weapons of terror if he knows that U.S. missiles are aimed at his forces. Additionally, it could be considered the lesser of many evils.

If the Obama administration wants to aid the rebels, it can’t really send arms because they could fall into the hands of terror organizations such as al-Qaida. We cannot send ground forces because, at $613 billion spent on wars to date, the last thing this country needs is another war in the desert. Not to mention that Syria is a close ally of Russia and is the location of its last foreign military base.

Russian President Vladimir Putin will not be happy with the U.S. if we are directly involved in the downfall of the regime and at that point we could be talking about a possible second Cold War.

The implications of this conflict and what it means for us are very complex. The truth is that there are no good options in this situation, so don’t be so quick to bash the leader of our country as he considers taking action against a terrible crime.