This is a tough week for the French president. François Hollande is fighting against the political tide for his credibility and leadership after his quick and decisive support for military action against the Syrian regime ran into trouble with the negative vote in the British parliament and Barack Obama's decision to request a vote in US Congress.
In January, the Socialist president surprised everyone with his quick decision to send the French army into Mali to stop a jihadist column heading to the capital, Bamako. There was praise for his leadership and a wide domestic consensus, both in political circles and public opinion, for this decisive – and successful – action.
If he had expected to replicate this rare unanimity with his Syrian initiative, he has been proved dramatically wrong.
Since the surprise British vote and the consequent US decision, President Hollande has been on the defensive.
The French president finds himself in the embarrassing position of being the only leader of a major participant in the proposed strikes not to have requested a parliamentary vote on the issue. As in the US, the French constitution of the fifth Republic, designed by Charles de Gaulle, doesn't require such a vote, and Hollande had only planned to "inform" parliament. He will most likely have to ask for a parliamentary green light if the US Congress authorises such action next week.
But the president finds himself in a tight corner. The rationale of the operation is being disputed by most of the opposition, from the right and the extreme right, as well as the extreme left. Only the governing coalition of Socialists and greens unconditionally support him.
In yesterday's information debate in the National Assembly, the French prime minister, Jean-Marc Ayrault, tried to use neo-gaullist tones about France's "grandeur" and "pride" to rally the opposition as well as public opinion which, according to opinion polls, opposes the strikes.
Objections range from the lack of international legitimacy in the absence of a UN security council resolution, to the vagueness of the war objectives, with the limited punitive scope the operation has been given, and the unknown consequences of the strikes in an explosive region.
Christian Jacob, the head of the parliamentary group of the main opposition party, the Union pour un Mouvement Populaire (UMP), has accused Hollande of being in a "diplomatic dead end" and of having "betrayed" France's traditional foreign policy of being "allied but not aligned" on the US.
Yet, Hollande has no choice than to stick to his hardline approach and hope to overcome three obstacles in the next decisive days: the French president needs the US Congress to approve the operation as France doesn't have the capacity and the political clout to go it alone in the case of US refusal; Hollande will have to be very persuasive to convince the French public of the legitimacy of his decision at a time of economic and social trouble; and the military action will have to be as limited and effective as he says it will be, without creating the massive regional explosion that its opponents predict.
The French president's position has surprisingly been strengthened by Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, who in an interview this week with the rightwing French newspaper Le Figaro, threatened France if it attacked. How can the country now back down and therefore grant victory to a man most French people consider a brutal dictator?
To show that he is determined, Hollande has had a wreath laid on the grave of Louis Delamare, the French ambassador to Lebanon, murdered in September 1981. It is common knowledge that the decision to murder the ambassador was made in Damascus, by or with the consent of Hafez al-Assad, the current Syrian president's father.
This is Hollande's toughest test since he was elected in May 2012. Highly unpopular, due to the economic crisis, he wants to show the doubting French, and the world, that France is still a major power to be reckoned with. The next few days will show if this was a hazardous path to follow.