AMERICA’S president, Barack Obama, is not the only person in two minds about potential American strikes against Syria. In the wake of his decision last weekend to defer the matter to congress, Syrians, both in Syria and abroad, remain divided over the desirability of such action.

Many, perhaps most, of President Bashar Assad's opponents favour a strike. "It can't make it worse," says an activist in Beirut, the Lebanese capital. Syria's Muslim Brotherhood, prominent in the political opposition though not on the ground, says that Mr Obama should intervene decisively to change the course of the war, or not do anything at all. John McCain, a Republican senator who has long supported American intervention, makes the same argument.

Most rebel commanders are disappointed at the delay, though they hope it could eventually lead to a more robust intervention. Some are loth to be seen publicly to welcome the strikes, but do so in private—although many criticise America for not asking them which targets to hit. Meanwhile, jihadist groups, notably Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), both al-Qaeda affiliates, are reported to have started to move some of their equipment, fearing that American strikes may target them, too.

The Syrian regime is predictably crowing over President Obama’s decision to go to congress, selling it to loyalists as a sign of Syria's strength in the face of foreign aggression. Following Mr Obama's announcement, al-Thawra, Arabic for The Revolution, an inaptly named state-run newspaper, declared the start of a “historic American retreat”. But for all their bravado, says a Syrian former government minister, members of the regime are worried.

Some wealthy Damascenes say that though they are keen to see the back of Mr Assad, they would rather America not strike because they fear the potential consequences. Syrians living in rebel-held areas, who have less to lose, seem more supportive of intervention. But many are annoyed that the conversation about strikes revolves around America’s credibility and deterring other regimes, rather than putting an end to Syria’s war or Mr Assad’s rule. Many also object to the fuss over chemical weapons, given that conventional ones have killed more than 100,000 people over the past two and a half years.

Outside the country, opinion is divided, too. At an Arab League meeting on September 1st, Algeria, Iraq and Lebanon voted against a statement which declared that Mr Assad must be confronted, even though it dodged the question of military action. Egypt, now under military rule, abstained. Some Arab states, like Saudi Arabia, urge action in private, but keep quiet publicly, lest they be seen to be seeking Western help. Al Azhar, a leading Sunni institution based in Cairo, has come out against military action but in favour of Syrians determining their own destiny. There is little consensus over how best that can be achieved. One thing many Syrians do agree on, however, is their contempt for Mr Obama's indecisiveness: "Obama, you ass, are you going to hit us or not?" asks a young Damascene on Facebook.