We asked a series of experts to weigh in.

Salman Shaikh**, Director, Brookings Doha Center:**

Obama has expressed the credible use of force. It’s a positive, not a negative. For the first time, he put that on the table. [The U.S.] did have an impact on getting the U.N. weapons inspectors into the site, relatively soon, two days after the [Ghouta] incident.  Having said that, the hesitancy of Obama will give Assad the confidence to intensify his military operations and increase the use of force even more, especially around the area of Damascus, where they are frustrated by the rebels still controlling some of these areas. That would probably mean intensifying force. But the regime is also apprehensive about an attack. I would not rule anything out when it comes to the Assad regime. Things will intensify, particularly conventional warfare and including the use of chemical weapons. What I understand from sources in Damascus is that [the regime] feels elated at this point in time and feels that they have been able to stare down the U.S. On the ground, this will have emboldened them further. Obama [will be seen as] as a president who’s still reluctant to lead.

The opposition on the ground is probably feeling confused and deflated. Of course there are some who don’t hold out great store anyway when it comes to Obama, and will probably see this as part of a conspiracy.

Sami Moubayed, visiting scholar at the Carnegie Middle East Center:

The mere threat of the strike had a tremendous effect on Syria: population, government and rebels all alike. It’s fundamental to understand here that over the past three years, Obama has not been there and Putin, because [Obama] has not been there, has not been dealing with the Syria crisis. Because of the vacuum that has been left, different players from indifferent countries have been involved. Now the U.S. has decided to step into the vacuum they have deliberately left over the last two years. This puts a lid on everybody. Has it succeeded so far? The mere threat has forced all parties to reconsider what the day after looks like. Any strike that doesn’t wipe out the capability of the regime would be perceived as a failure and play out to Assad’s benefit. A strike that gets things out of control might have led to an all-out war. It has changed the dynamic, but in what direction, we do not know. This is not just that the Americans changed their minds. Everyone, from diplomats to world leaders, was expecting a strike on Saturday night.

Fadi Salem, Director, Governance and Innovation, Dubai School of Government:

So far, nothing has been accomplished. But the threat of a strike could be more effective than the strike itself, especially because it’s designed to be a specific small strike that will probably empower the regime to portray it as a win to supporters, saying we survived the global conspiracy by the U.S. and U.N. What happened yesterday when Obama approached Congress is that this could lead to better results by keeping the stick up against the regime, rather than being a small slap. [Secretary of State John] Kerry and Obama have said that their goal is to have a political solution to the Syrian crisis.

The threat of a strike has more or less divided Syrians as well as the opposition. You can sense internal conflict among Syrians themselves as well as among opposition groups. Many believe, mistakenly, that a strike would be solving something or leading to a solution, which is misleading. It is misleading to sell that hope to the public, which is happening a lot on the opposition side. And others view that the threat of a small strike could empower the regime, and that, pragmatically thinking, could lead to a fascist reaction by the regime. It’s not clear how [a strike] would lead to better results other than the good feeling of taking temporary revenge of the regime.