Does he break the "no" British "Alliance of the Willing"?

 The idea was to form a large "Alliance of the willing" to punish crimes against humanity committed by the Syrian regime of Bashar al Assad and his troops. As in 2003, when 50 nations came together to topple Saddam Hussein. But precisely Prime Minister Cameron, who on behalf of Britain said early be prepared to militarily attack Syria, even without UN permission, lost - although narrowly - a vote of confidence in Parliament . "An unexpected event" for Kai Oppermann German political scientist at King's College, London. "The prime minister review misjudged the action both within their ranks and in the population," says Oppermann, who concludes that "the vast majority of Britons do not want their country to participate in military strikes against Syria".

Reply lasts without pumps: German strategy with Syria

Also I see the professor at the University of Erlangen, Roland Sturm, who does see that it was the widespread rejection of the population to military action which prompted MPs to vote against Cameron's plans: "In Britain, politicians may contradict much to their constituents if they want to be elected again.”

British-American Relations rasponeadas

For Professor Sturm, vote against Cameron has a strong internal connotation, since most of the British argue that "it is obvious that Britain is next to the United States, as well as that London should have a place among the powers." According to Sturm, "the British support an alliance against evil, but you see the national political sense".

But the "special relationship" between London and Washington going wrong for some time. Already in 2003, Tony Blair was branded as "Bush's poodle". This just adds that "the confidence they need partners in disputes with third parties has been undermined by the Parliament itself," says Oppermann. A serious matter, since Britain was that U.S. stocks pushed against Syria. Now will be the British who decide what will be your role in the world. There will be internal consequences and Cameron already shaking.

Obama: The new shooter?

The loss of support from Britain leaves Obama alone in the field, while the French newspaper "L'Alsace" is presented as one of those cavalry commanders who gives the order to fire and runs off. Obama has hinted that he would attack Syria, even without a UN mandate.

Shortly international support for attacks

"If the Security Council is unable to act, it will form a coalition," he said, for his part, François Hollande. Germany, however, is cautious. Merkel has said that the authorship of the chemical gas attacks has already been tested. But Germany did not take part in military attacks, especially without UN authorization. Poland has a similar stance. Turkey for its part, believes that an attack on Assad accelerate its fall. Although fears of retaliation are great, since both countries share 800 km of border. Israel also supports a military operation, but refrains from participating in it for fear of retaliation.