Given the level of invested American prestige, the momentum toward launching a strike on Syria appears unstoppable. But US President Barack Obama can still use a likely forthcoming congressional authorization of war to win without an actual war — if he talks to Iran.

As Winston Churchill said, “The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy, but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.” The Middle Eastern tinderbox is no place for planning and precision. Not only could Syrian President Bashar al-Assad — who allegedly used chemical weapons while UN inspectors were a few miles away — do it again, but he also could pull in other countries and trigger regional mayhem. If the balance of power remains intact, Assad will take revenge on the rebels; if it tilts to the other side, it will be a godsend for Salafists and al-Qaeda. Any power vacuum is likely to be filled by ethnic cleansing.

Some might believe that once the dust settles after the Tomahawks destroy their targets, all stakeholders will politely turn toward the negotiating table to talk peace. They will not.

A military strike on Syria might also jeopardize chances for resolving another chronic Middle Eastern predicament: Iran’s nuclear crisis. Although President Hassan Rouhani’s success depends on rescuing Iran's anemic economy, this feat is nearly impossible without sanctions relief. An attack on Syria is likely to delay, if not derail, a nuclear diplomatic breakthrough.