Will Obama stick to his word over Syrian chemicals?

[Skybird]

The evidence for chemicals being used by the Assad regime, is mounting. First the Israelis rang the alarm bell, then the US' Chuck Hagel, now the British become loud about it, too.

Obama had once set a red line of which he said if it get trespassed it would mean the engagement of the US military. The red line he has drawn back then was chemical weapons being used.

I am strictly against any modern weapons being delivered to the Syrian opposition, I am also against fincial funding of them. And even more I am against any military engagement by Western or Russian forces in that country.

However the valid question has risen now whether Obama has just given a worthless piece of sound when making his statements, or whether he will stick to what he said and will authorize the threatened consequences and get US military forces involved now.

Israel will have a close look on what he does, or does not. Because he has promised to stand by Israel when Iran is too close to getting the bomb. If Obama now does not drew consequences from the triggering of Syrian condition that he has set up, then the Israelis will have little trust in assuming that when Iran trespasses Obama's line, Obama then will stand by his announcement to play the military card together with Israel (which by then will be too late anyway, I claim with being 95% certain on that).

P.S. IMO, Obama should have never made that announcement that now is haunting him. It is a lose-lose situation. Either he is the president whose word is worth nothing (and that will be recognised by Israel and other allies in Asia), or he is the president having started another US military operation in support of Islamic fundamentalists and despite a hopeless financial situation of the nation. This is the outcome when hope is being made the only basis of decision-making, instead of cold-blooded reason.