The situation in Syria is absolutely horrible and may soon rise to the level of civil war. Even worse, for the rest of the world, it may become part of a pattern of volatile political, military and economic instability in the entire region, especially given Iran’s intransigence.

If Americans thought that the demise of the Soviet Union two decades ago was a harbinger of world peace, they now must know better. Remember the talk back then of the “peace dividend”? That’s all in the past and all but forgotten as new crises have replaced the old.

Much of the blame for the worsening disaster in Syria lies with Russia and China, which both vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution calling for international action on behalf of the Syrian people and against the dictator Bashar al-Assad, whose family has ruled the nation for 40 years.

The Russian and Chinese vetoes only fuel the anger some Americans on the political right direct to the UN, but their scorn is misplaced. The fact is, in pursuit of our own national interests, the United States has exercised its veto power on the Security Council more than any of the other participants (Russia, China, the United Kingdom and France).

The United States first cast a veto in 1970 when Ambassador Charles W. Yost was the only member to oppose a UN initiative involving what was then Rhodesia and is now Zimbabwe. Most of the American vetoes, however, have involved Israel. Earlier this month, in fact, the United States drew criticism around the world when it vetoed resolutions condemning Israeli settlements. Even so, Republican candidates for president have blithely accused Barack Obama of “throwing Israel under the bus.”

With Security Council action off the table, other parties have begun seeking a solution to the troubles in Syria. The Arab League met in Cairo on Sunday to discuss a variety of steps, including a more aggressive effort to provide humanitarian aid to the rebels and, perhaps more significantly, recognizing the Syrian National Council in exile as an alternative government.

Today, the UN General Assembly will take up the Syrian situation. A nonbinding resolution, to be introduced by Saudi Arabia, supports an Arab League proposal designed to encourage Syria to begin a transition to democracy. But there isn’t a great deal of optimism.

That’s at least partly because, on Saturday, rebel gunmen assassinated a military general who was a major figure in the government’s power structure. It was the first killing of its kind in Damascus and ended any hopes those protesting against the dictatorship would remain essentially nonviolent.

Russian President Vladimir Putin criticized those nations supporting sanctions against Syria as behaving “like bulls in a china shop.” But he must recognize that even Syria’s closest neighbors and fellow Arab states believe that international action against Assad is the only way to prevent the crisis from spreading.

Attempts by the United States and her European and Arab allies to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons have so far failed to achieve their objectives and it’s unsettling to realize that Iran may be providing military and other aid to Assad in Syria. A quick glance at the map shows just how dangerous a successful Iran-Syria alliance would be to world peace.

Russia and China believe that opposing sanctions against Syria serves their best interests (both enjoy favorable business relations with Syria), but if the best interests of the world at large are to be considered, something needs to be done. This calls for a steady hand in Washington.