“The U.S. and its allies can certainly conduct an operationally successful [military] campaign in Syria,” Mueller said, outlining several different scenarios in which U.S. forces could strike.

ADVERTISEMENT

The scenarios range from limited strikes on Assad's forces to a full-scale air campaign "similar to that employed by the U.S. to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001," according to a new RAND report.

"But each of these aerial intervention options has the potential to escalate or expand the conflict and could lead to unwelcome responses from Assad’s allies or to wider or deeper U.S. military involvement," he added.

His comments and report come as President Obama and top White House national security officials are attempting to garner congressional support for U.S. action in Syria.

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel Charles (Chuck) Timothy HagelWhile our foes deploy hypersonic weapons, Washington debates about funding Hillicon Valley: Democrats request counterintelligence briefing | New pressure for election funding | Republicans urge retaliation against Chinese hackers National security leaders, advocacy groups urge Congress to send election funds to states MORE, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey and Secretary of State John Kerry John Forbes KerryThe Memo: Warning signs flash for Trump on debates Divided country, divided church TV ads favored Biden 2-1 in past month MORE came to Capitol Hill on Tuesday to lay out the administration's war plans.

House Speaker John Boehner John Andrew BoehnerLongtime House parliamentarian to step down Five things we learned from this year's primaries Bad blood between Pelosi, Meadows complicates coronavirus talks MORE (R-Ohio) said he would back the White House on military action, after a meeting with Obama on Tuesday.

However, many members on Capitol Hill remain wary of the United States entering another armed conflict in the Middle East.

Some lawmakers opposed to Syrian action claim U.S forces cannot afford to attack, due to the current fiscal situation facing the Pentagon under sequestration.

Others side with Mueller's argument that U.S. intervention will lead to escalation of American involvement in Syria and trigger a wave of sectarian violence similar to the U.S. experience in Iraq.

But sectarian tensions are already beginning to bubble over in the wake of the chemical attacks and anticipated U.S. response.

Jabhat al-Nusra, the main al Qaeda faction in Syria, is vowing wide-scale attacks against Alawite Muslims in the country in retaliation for the chemical strikes.

The Assad family is part of the country's ruling Alawite population, centered in Western Syria.

If the Sunni-led terror group delivers on those threats on Syrian Alawites, the attacks could trigger a wave of sectarian violence and escalate the ongoing civil war into a regional conflict.

Top Pentagon officials, including Dempsey and Hagel, have repeatedly cited the growing threat of sectarian violence in Syria as a main reason to avoid U.S. military action in the country.

On Tuesday, President Obama dismissed any comparisons between U.S. action in Syria to the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.

“This is not Iraq, and this is not Afghanistan,” Obama said in remarks aimed at a wary Congress and American public.

“It is proportional. It is limited. It does not involve boots on the ground,” he added during a meeting with top congressional leaders at the White House, regarding possible Syrian operations.

Obama's comments come days after he announced the administration would seek congressional support for any military operation in Syria. That vote could come later this month.

Obama stated he was prepared to conduct strikes against Assad in retaliation for the regime's use of chemical weapons without lawmakers' blessing.

But seeking official authorization from Congress could unify the country behind any effort to strike the Syrian regime.