Anchored by Jake Tapper, The Lead airs at 4 p.m. ET on CNN.
We've moved! Come join us at our new show page.
The newly-sworn in President Barack Obama sat down with Al Arabiya news, and offered "a hand of friendship" to the Arab world in January 2009.
Today, the Arab world has mixed feelings when it comes to the president, and view potential military action in Syria with skepticism.
"President Obama's stature and reputation in the Arab world has taken a beating long before the war in Syria," said Hisham Melhem, Washington bureau chief of Al Arabiya television, who conducted that first interview with Obama.
While President Barack Obama considers the consequences of military action in Syria, one of them could involve the pocketbooks of regular Americans filling up their tanks.
The worst case scenario for gasoline prices is that the conflict escalates and spreads to Iran and Iraq, said Jim Lacamp, senior vice president and portfolio manager with Macro Portfolio Advisors. Plus, there is already unrest in Egypt.
"If this escalates into other countries, you could be talking about a disruption of global oil supplies. And speculators would come in and start driving up the price as well. You could see gasoline prices here in the U.S. go up to $5 or so," said Lacamp.
If the U.S. takes limited action, the impact on oil prices would not last long.
"My best guess is it is a limited reaction, and prices escalate for a couple of days, and prices will come back down. We don't have a supply or demand issue in this country," said Lacamp.
For more of our interview with analyst Jim Lacamp, check out the video above.
As the U.S. weighs its options for intervention, Syria is busy dispersing resources and moving people. When or if there are strikes against Syria, those missiles will be blowing up empty buildings.
In sharp contrast is Israel's reaction – they strike without warning. There is no discussion, and no coalition. They go in, blow things up, and justify actions afterwards. Other nations may get upset, but nothing ever happens.
CNN's Tom Foreman and retired U.S. Army Major General and CNN military analyst James "Spider" Marks outline the cost to the U.S. of losing the element of surprise in Syria.
President Barack Obama has seemingly faced three stages in the media coverage since the alleged chemical attack in Syria last week. The first was: Look at these horrible pictures, doesn't the U.S. have to respond right away? After that was: Hold on, how can the president respond without congressional support and an international coalition? The third was: What has taken so long for the president to act?
There is a reason for the media whiplash. Iraq hangs over the media reporting of Syria, and the public view of the situation. Media organizations are trying to behave differently this time around.
The U.S. invasion of Iraq, and all the political bruises still associated with it, casts a long shadow over possible U.S. military action in Syria.
Former president George W. Bush, who ordered that invasion, weighed in on the situation facing his successor Friday.
"The president's got a tough choice to make. If he decides to use the military, he's got the greatest military in the world backing him up. I was not a fan of Mr. Assad. He's an ally of Iran, he's made mischief. I'm not going to get roped into this," Bush told Fox News.
But President Barack Obama is already "roped in," and faces a host of political implications when it comes to action in Syria.