With reference to the news world's credibility at stake over Syria, US President Barack Obama has said that any use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime of President Basher Al-Assad would be a "red line. Many have posed the question as to why the US and its allies are considering an intervention now that the conflict has already left around 100,000 dead, forced more than 2 million Syrians to flee the country and has increased tensions in neighboring countries. In theory, any US-led strike against the Syrian regime is a gift to the rebels fighting to overthrow Assad but many are convinced that the real target of the US strikes will be the anti-Western Islamist militias that have increased their number in the two-and-a-half-year civil war. Such is the depth of suspicion militant groups feel toward Western governments that some of them have even accused the West of being indirectly behind the August 21 chemical attacks to give the US a "green light" to strike. This is the first time that even Britain does not want to follow America into another war. Even UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has insisted that the use of force will only be legal if it is in self-defense or undertaken with the authorization of the UN Security Council as set out in the UN Charter. Obama's decision to put off an attack on Syria and seek authorization from Congress apparently stunned some of his closest advisers, but to take action without the UN, UK, Congress and American people's support would be very uncomfortable for a man who came to office vowing to end America's foreign wars. Israrul Haque, Jeddah
