0 warfare. >> why do you think the seeming confidence from the white house that this is actually the work of the assad government and it would also push back on your notion that this is not the time and place for the u.s. to intervene, richard haas, who also is a council -- at the council on foreign relations says that this is -- that the use of chemical weapons, i mean we've talked about red lines, but does mark a -- there is a reason for the u.s. to get involved in the western powers to get involved. he writes the reasons for a strong response transcends syria. it will be a very different 21st century if weapons of mass destruction come to be seen as just another type of weapon. basically this het seths a precedent if we don't do something. >> richard is right but the assumption the regime has used chemical weapons. if we follow richard's line of argument and it's established it wasn't the regime but the rebels and al qaeda elements that used weapons of mass destruction or chemical weapons, then we're in the position of attacking al qaeda and the free syrian army. it's essential we establish who is using chemicals we're. we haven't established that fact. may be one lead option. but in terms of will and political power to do something and political sort of -- any kind of impetus from -- to do something, i'm not clear that the president really has much in the wheelhouse in terms of being able to call on some sort of outrage from the american public, though i think as an american the situation over there is outrageous and untenable. >> right. he doesn't. i think the latest poll had something like 7% of people wanting to get involved with this, which is, of course, a legacy of iraq. the evidence that we might be inching towards something like that, is that the talk about how reluctant we are to do it is increasing. whenever we're sharing with the world how reluctant we are to attack something, you know, you can pretty much count on it, we're going to attack something pretty soon. we've been reluctant for 00 years and going to -- 200 years and going to war pretty freak lent. >> 200 years of reluctance. >> using chemical weapons is in an international war crime and passing law -- international laws against the use of chemical, biological, nuclear weapons by some countries, was one of the great progressive achievements of the 20th century, but it deserves an international response. that doesn't mean united states just goes in and blows up a few things and all of a sudden everyone is deterred for the 21st century using chemical weapons. >> nor do i think the president -- if you look at libya as any kind of example, i don't think the president would go in by himself. it's an theatrical to who he is on the foreignp policy level at this point and there's something to be said for the point that dexter filkins makes in "the new yorker," he writes what can america do? it's not unreasonable to ask whether even a well intentioned american effort to save syria might fail or such might pull america into a terrible quagmire but how much longer are we going to allow those questions to prevent us from trying? >> i think we've seen a shift. the front page of "the washington post" with the bodies including the center of one that looked like maybe no more than 2 years old was clearly a moment that we'll look back on and know this war just got a lot more real for people. back in the end of may there was a poll that asked would there be more support for intervention if chemical weapons were used and the numbers went from the low 20s to 58%. now i think it will be interesting to see if people start feeling new polls now. i think the president needs to feel like he has the support of the american people. i think with all of the issues that are going on right now it has not been front of mind, obviously, in most -- around most kitchen tables in america. i think if we start to see more images like we saw on the front page of "the washington post," you will start to see some moral, you know, we still believe we're superman actually. >> and i think we americans, i believe we are compassionate people. we focus a lot on negative parts of this country, but you see women and children being gassed to death and the pictures of those children on the front page of national newspapers, the american response is to say this must end somehow. the question is how. i wonder, ben, to what degree does the president allow this to be part of his -- i mean a big part, foreign policy could end up being a huge part of his second term legacy. >> and this is a moment when presidents tend to look to make those big, you know, big second term achievements. one thing that's difficult for me about this moment is, you know, the red line feels a little bit legalistic. you understand the legal case for differentiating between chemical weapons and, you know, conventional weapons, but we've been watching for two years as tens of thousands of people have been killed on both sides, sure, but the documents of atrocities by the government and pro government militias are substantial and really long-lasting. and so obama establishes this red line, you know, and, you know, a year ago, and it looks now like sort of a concession to a limit on american capacity to actually go in and do something and now he's sort of up against it a little bit. >> yeah. >> i think that the distinction we drew at the beginning of this segment also where the u.s. shouldn't do something, but, you know, it's incumbent upon the europeans and the turks and other countries in the gulf to do something is a little bit false. it comes down to the question of something, you know. it's possible for there to be a u.s. intervention that is not, you know, throwing cruise missiles at government installations with no support as ryan and heather sort of pointed out and i think what obama is looking at here is likely to be some sort of team effort as you've seen all along. >> do you gis disagree with that? >> short of a u.s. invasion or troops on the ground you are not going to separate fighting factions inside syria. if a u.s. presence on the ground means greater international support, then let's talk about that. but nobody is seriously contemplating having troops on the ground. without troops on the ground you're not going to separate the fighting factions. back to my international point and that is, why would assad want to use chemical weapons in the northeastern suburb of damascus, under his control, to kill only, forgive me for being so cold, about 1,000 people where killed 5,000 people every month for the last 16 months without using chemical weapons. >> jeffrey goldberg made the point he's doing it to flout international authorities and say there's nothing you can do. >> i don't think he can play that cheap game because he's responded by repeatedly saying the u.s. should not be getting involved because this will not be a picnic. we can't have it both ways, one hand trying to flout the international community and on the other hand putting out messages of fear. we still don't know who committed the atrocity and unless we have the full facts we're going to be doing a repeat of iraq, blowing threats out of all proportion and talking about weapons of mass destruction and not knowing where the chemical facilities are and then putting u.s. blood and treasure at risk once again. >> i think we -- the -- the spector of iraq looms incredibly large over syria but what we've witnessed in the two and half years, 1.7 million refugees, 100,000, conservative estimate dead, pictures of women and children gassed to death, by who we don't know, but we are not going in there because we think -- i think the reasons for going into syria are different than going into the reasons for going into iraq which were largely based on lies. but i -- the intelligence gathering piece i think in specific is one of the the igs that may hold us back. amman, i want to get more one question in to you. in terms of how and where the u.s. sides, i think we've done a very adequate job of explaining the complexity of the situation, but edward lutsvoc in "the new york times" writes a decisive outcome for either side would be unacceptable for the u.s. an iranian backed restoration of the iranian agreement would increase iran's power across the middle east. at this stage, stalemate is the only viable policy option left. that is, i think, a fairly dramatic assessment of where the u.s. needs to go which is to press, he says, for stalemate. what do you think of that? >> it's pushing for a stalemate from a political end may be an objective, but you got to keep in mind if it doesn't bring an end to the killing of innocent syrians to the people who are suffering to the humanitarian crisis it has created across the region, then everybody loses. there's an irony in all of this which is over the course of the last two years, the stated policy of the united states and others has been that they don't want this conflict to spread beyond syria's borders, they didn't want what was happening inside syria to affect its neighbors. ironically two years after inaction from the community, every country around syria has been affected by it and it seems that circle continues to widen. a stalemate may appear on the surface as a solution but the bottom line at the end of the day is so long as syrians continue to suffer it will affect the region. >> nbc's ayman mohyeldin thank you as always and thank you to the council on foreign relations, thanks for your time. after the break tens of thousands descend on the washington mall to pay tribute to the calls of civil and human rights, the march on washington and where dr. king's dream stands today. that's next on "now." [ male announcer ] this is claira. to prove to you that aleve is the better choice for her, she's agreed to give it up. that's today? [ male announcer ] we'll be with her all day to see how it goes. [ claira ] after the deliveries, i was okay. now the ciabatta is done and the pain is starting again. more pills? seriously? seriously. [ groans ] all these stops to take more pills can be a pain. can i get my aleve back? ♪ for my pain, i want my aleve. [ male announcer ] look for the easy-open red arthritis cap. ♪ now you can give yourself a kick in the rear! v8 v-fusion plus energy. natural energy from green tea plus fruits and veggies. need a little kick? ooh! could've had a v8. in the juice aisle. but chantix helped me do it. i told my doctor i think i'm... i'm ready. [ male announcer ] along with support, chantix (varenicline) is proven to help people quit smoking. it reduces the urge to smoke. i knew that i could smoke for the first 7 days. i knew that i wasn't putting nicotine back into my body to try to quit. [ male announcer ] some people had changes in behavior, thinking or mood, hostility, agitation, depressed mood and suicidal thoughts or actions while taking or after stopping chantix. if you notice any of these, stop chantix and call your doctor right away. tell your doctor about any history of mental health problems, which could get worse while taking chantix. don't take chantix if you've had a serious allergic or skin reaction to it. if you develop these, stop chantix and see your doctor right away as some can be life-threatening. tell your doctor if you have a history of heart or blood vessel problems, or if you develop new or worse symptoms. get medical help right away if you have symptoms of a heart attack or stroke. use caution when driving or operating machinery. common side effects include nausea, trouble sleeping and unusual dreams. if i could describe being a nonsmoker, i would say "awesome." [ male announcer ] ask your doctor if chantix is right for you.