We cannot know. But however important that question is, it should not be the only one that MPs ask if they vote on bombing ISIS in Syria – or even the main one.
The stability of Syria, and any hope for wider peace in the region, depend upon the removal of this dictator.
Our continued refusal to intervene against ISIS and Assad is undermining our reputation in the West and our influence in the Middle East.
The Russian scheme has a major, obvious flaw: the Syrian regime is mostly fighting not ISIS, but other armed groups.
Without this strategic step-change in our approach, the UK’s involvement in air strikes would achieve very little, and could be counter-productive.
We must address the source of the migration crisis, and find a way to face down ISIS. That requires a difficult decision.
Reports today concentrate on what Labour would do and whether it would split. But a lesson from 2013 is that Cameron must be careful how he handles his own party.
Parliament will soon debate intervention in the conflict – we need a clear idea of what we can do.
Tories are at their weakest when they appear short on empathy and seem to limit that vaunted freedom to flourish to a privileged few.
“The people most responsible for the terrible scenes we see are President Assad, the butchers of ISIL and the people running these criminal gangs.”
A legacy of the Corbyn surge, whoever wins the party’s leadership, is that getting its support for bombing in the autumn will be as problematic as ever – if not more so.
Islamist fanatics could consolidate control of the border on the Golan – threatening the massacre of a people with close ties to their fellow religionists on its other side.
Iran’s regime has more values in common with America than Egypt’s or Saudi Arabia’s.
It remains a real threat to both our interests and our allies throughout the Middle East.
Few leaders on the continental mainland have the understanding and the political will to take the measures that are needed to protect their citizens.