Western disarray gives succour to Assad Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian leader blamed for the alleged gassing of Syrians in a Damascus suburb, must have been feeling smug on Saturday evening. Instead of cruise missiles raining on his military bases, he was offered a delay, perhaps even a permanent reprieve, as US President Barack Obama delivered his surprise decision to seek congressional approval for punitive strikes. While Mr Assad breathed a sigh of relief, his opponents were fuming. "It's so disappointing that democracies are protecting dictators like Bashar," said Radwan Ziadeh, a US-based Syrian opposition activist. Global Insight There is of course merit in turning to lawmakers for a controversial move that the American public is deeply sceptical of. But the US president's last minute decision - the strikes had been expected to begin as early as this weekend - will probably be interpreted in Damascus as another sign of western weakness. Mr Obama's gamble has thrown military action, though intended to be narrow and limited, into uncertainty, with no guarantee of a sign off from lawmakers, who return to Washington on September 9. Mr Assad could still face punishment for the August 21 attack in a Damascus suburb, or he could emerge as the beneficiary of western democracy and western fatigue with the Middle East and its messy wars. Mr Obama's change of heart - officials had been saying for days there would be no need for congressional approval - has exposed, more starkly than ever, the international disarray over Syria, a state of affairs that Mr Assad has repeatedly exploited. Since the outbreak of the Syrian crisis in early 2011, the Syrian dictator has derived his strength from the dedication of Russia and Iran, allies that need not bother with questions of legality and public opinion, and the dithering of his enemies in the Arab and western world. Just how hesitant western (and Arab) governments have been became apparent over the past week, as the frantic US rallying for a diplomatic and military support coalition laid bare the depth of scepticism to the American plan. First came the humiliating vote against the prospect of intervention in the UK parliament, which left the authority of David Cameron, UK prime minister and possibly the most passionate voice for intervention, diminished. Both Germany and Italy, meanwhile, made clear they would not participate in military action. In fact, only France and Turkey openly expressed willingness to join in. More time could allow for a more robust US response and a clearer articulation of how it might push Syria towards less rather than more bloodshed As the strikes neared, criticism poured in from all corners - from long-time proponents of military intervention who deemed the US plans unambitious and from detractors who fretted they would drag the US into another Middle Eastern war. Mr Assad must have watched the raging debate with satisfaction. It was, after all, less about the civil war in Syria and the brutality of his regime than wider diplomatic and local political issues. The discussion in the UK was dominated by the ghosts of past wars, particularly the fear of a repeat of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, and driven at least in part by domestic politics, as the Labour opposition jockeyed for advantage. In the US, meanwhile, officials spent the last week stressing that the strikes were intended to deter other actors, such as Lebanon's Hizbollah and Iran, from similar use of unconventional weapons and to protect Syria's neighbours - Israel and Jordan - from potential Syrian chemical warfare. They went to great pains to emphasise that their actions were not aimed at ousting Mr Assad or providing an opportunity to tilt the balance of power in favour of his rebel enemies. So removed was Syria's civil war from the conversation that some Syrian opposition officials feared Mr Assad could emerge emboldened or with no more than a bruise. He would then lash out against them while western governments returned to the sidelines. Mr Assad is not out of trouble. The analysis of samples from the attack taken by UN inspectors could bolster the Obama administration's case and build support for strikes in Congress and among the American public. More time could also allow for a more robust US response and a clearer articulation of how it might push Syria towards less rather than more bloodshed. Alternatively, however, the delay could spur momentum for opposition to military action and Mr Assad could be spared - a dire prospect for Syrians who will be the target of his regime's attacks. So far, he has bought more time to move his military hardware around and prepare, both militarily and on the propaganda front, for what he has dismissed as an American "aggression" to which Syria will stand up.