Obama’s approach is a “dead-end strategy,” said James Phillips, senior research fellow for Middle Eastern affairs at the Heritage Foundation.

“The administration puts diplomacy as the first tool but, unless there’s pressure on Assad to accept an agreement, he’s not going to do it,” Phillips said. “The whole move to a diplomatic conference is premature and wishful thinking. I think Secretary Kerry realizes that and is advocating for more military support, but he’s getting resistance from the White House.”

Jon Alterman, Middle East director at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, agreed that it’s “hard to argue our policy is producing the desired outcomes,” but said “that’s not to say any other policy would produce better outcomes.”

“The administration remains concerned about being sucked into an escalating conflict, and it’s conscious that the public isn’t supportive of direct U.S. engagement,” he said. “A broad sense in the Middle East that there are no circumstances that would provoke deeper U.S. engagement has diminished U.S. leverage at a time that Assad is growing stronger and ‘jihadis’ are becoming a larger part of the opposition forces. Neither are in the U.S. interest.”