President Obama has been criticized far too long within the country for waffling and waning on Syria. Even though most people do not want U.S. boots on the ground, Obama’s presumed passivity and lack of strategy have turned into a political liability for the administration. The U.S. president is a reluctant warrior, but he can be convinced of the need to use force, as in Libya or during the surge in Afghanistan. Obama will try hard to avoid being dragged into another ground war in the Middle East, but he will fire more than a warning shot. The United States is about to start a campaign which will aim at eventually toppling the Assad regime. Washington will lead a coalition of Syrian rebels, Middle Eastern and European countries which will seek to unseat Assad and rob Iran of its one major ally.

For some observers, Obama may be taking a leaf from Bill Clinton’s Kosovo playbook. The situation in and around Syria, however, is remarkably different from the Balkans in the 1990s. The Middle East is not former Yugoslavia, and Syria is no Serbia. There will be multiple reactions to the U.S. actions in the region and beyond, and massive unintended consequences. No one will emerge unscathed. For now, however, all this is unknowable. As usual, political rather than strategic logic is pushing President Obama into a war which, once started, will define his presidency as much as the two wars he has ended or is winding down.