Life imitates the movies.

In the 1998 film Wag the Dog, actor Dustin Hoffman plays a film producer who invents a war between the US and Albanian terrorists.

The idea was to distract American public opinion, which was outraged by the president's sexual advances toward a schoolgirl in the White House gardens.

That same year, President Bill Clinton was performing very poorly in the polls due to his scandalous relationship with Miss Lewinsky.

That was when he ordered the bombing of a factory in Ethiopia, which was allegedly producing dangerous chemical agents for al-Qaeda.

But it was a false accusation: it turned out to be a peaceful aspirin factory….

At the time, some newspapers published a photo of an Ethiopian civilian amidst the rubble holding a sign that read: "Wag the dog".

Fifteen years later, history seems to be repeating itself.

Under heavy attack in the press and Congress, President Barack Obama announces that he has proven that the Syrian government crossed the red line: it used chemical weapons against the rebels.

Given this, he stated that he would intervene in the war more directly. It was unclear whether this would involve establishing a no-fly zone or supplying weapons to the rebels.

Former President Clinton, who has specific experience with this type of strategy, reportedly anticipated the presidential decision by urging the White House to act without further hesitation days ago.

Obviously, we cannot swear that this interpretation is correct.

Some say it was the fact that Assad's troops were on the offensive, leaving his adversaries in a difficult situation, that convinced Obama to act.

Last year, Mrs. Clinton and then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta had persistently pressed the president in this regard.

He resisted.

A factor weighing against military aid to the rebels was the large number of jihadist movements, staunch enemies of the US, in their army.

With Assad defeated, these militiamen could even seize power. Even if they didn't succeed, sooner or later they would use American weapons against their own donors.

Obama preferred to let the war run its course, reinforcing the secularist sectors of the anti-Assad army, hoping they would eventually expel the troublesome jihadists.

But then, the Syrian government, with the help of Hezbollah, begins to turn the tide. Their victories follow one after another, and the trend points towards the defeat of the revolution.

This would mean losing a great opportunity to weaken Iran by bringing down the ayatollahs' main ally in the Middle East.

Faced with this undesirable prospect, Obama reportedly changed his mind: siding with the hawks in the White House.

There is also a third possible interpretation.

Everything Obama said would be true.

He had indeed received conclusive proof of Assad's involvement with chemical weapons, leading him to arm the rebels.

I find that somewhat dubious.

A few days ago, the American president had declared that he did not consider the evidence from the French and British governments regarding the use of Sarin gas by the Damascus government to be sufficient.

It is possible that during this period the CIA has brought forth new facts, this time irrefutable.

I recall that, after the false evidence of the existence of nuclear weapons in Saddam Hussein's possession, American espionage doesn't deserve much credit.

Obama failed to convince the Russians of the validity of the facts presented by the CIA. "It would be difficult to even consider them facts," quipped Ushakov, an advisor to Putin.

It is true that the Moscow government's position cannot be given too much weight, since, after all, it is a stakeholder, as an ally of the Syrian government. Biased, therefore.

But the same can be said of the American government, which, from the beginning of the uprising, advocated the overthrow of Assad.

To determine whether the Syrian president actually used Sarin gas, an independent analysis would be necessary.

The only existing opinion, from Carla del Ponti, a UN human rights researcher, is that, although there is no conclusive evidence, if anyone used Sarin gas, it was probably the rebels.

Against Assad, there is the ban on entry into Syria of a commission created by the UN specifically to investigate the matter.

He argues that the commission's conclusion would be biased, since it does not include any representatives from allies China and Russia, only from countries indifferent to or critical of the Syrian regime.

Despite so many pessimistic considerations, Russia and the US still want to hold a meeting to discuss a peace agreement.

It will be ineffective if the rebels continue to refuse to participate and the US vetoes Iran's inclusion, logically given that country's influence over its ally, Assad.

In the movie starring Dustin Hoffman, the trick worked. The American people believed in the US victory in the fake war against the Albanian terrorists. And the president was elected.

If life continues to imitate the movies, the wiretaps of American espionage will be forgotten by the population.

It's impossible to predict what will happen with the war in Syria.

Unlike what happens in the movie, she is real.

Unfortunately, very true.