The Washington Post reported yesterday that the Obama administration will not ask Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s permission if it deems it necessary for the U.S. to attack the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) inside Syria itself.

The Obama administration has ruled out the possibility of coordinating U.S. airstrikes in Syria with President Bashar al-Assad’s government, forcing U.S. officials to design a campaign that would evade Syrian air defenses or coordinate it with Assad through a third party. …

With top U.S. officials describing the Islamic State militant group as a growing threat to international security, some form of stepped-up U.S. action appears increasingly likely and could include an expansion of American airstrikes from Iraq into Syria. Whether done in concert with Assad or not, such strikes would be a strategic benefit to Assad more than three years after the start of the uprising against his rule.

The Post quoted State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki, who said at a press briefing yesterday:

Well, I spoke to this a little bit yesterday, but one of the considerations is certainly the safety and security of the American people, and our view of threats facing our homeland and Western interests. And if it – when it comes to the interests of the American people, the interests of the United States, we’re not going to ask for permission from the Syrian regime.

Last week, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said at a press conference that Syria was a “central part of the problem” in the Middle East and dismissed the idea of any American cooperation with Syria against ISIS. In an analysis written for The New York Times, Hassan Hassan, a Gulf-based journalist, pointed out that Assad actually has a history of helping ISIS, and was therefore not a reliable ally in the fight against the terror group.

[Photo: Dustin Brice / Flickr ]