Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard has narrowly avoided being struck with a Vegemite sandwich.

The 51-year-old was targeted with the yeasty snack during a visit to a school near Brisbane, but shrugged it off as “a bit of high jinks”, The Telegraph reported.

The near-miss brings to mind a series of other politicians who have also been targeted with eggs, slime, pies and in one case a miniature model of a cathedral (which hospitalised Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi).

Scroll down for a gallery of random attacks on other public figures

Shortly after Israel carried out its biggest attack on Syria since the Yom Kippur War, a former high-ranking IDF official spoke to the media. "Iran is testing Israel and the US's determination to uphold 'red lines'", said Amos Yadlin, whose views can be taken as representative of many senior IDF officers. "And what it is seeing in Syria is that at least some of the actors take red lines seriously".

This last pointed remark was aimed squarely at Barack Obama, whose aides have been busy leaking to The New York Times that the president didn't really mean it when he said that the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime would cross a "red line". "The idea was to put a chill into the Assad regime without actually trapping the president into any predetermined action," one senior official told the paper.

In other words, it was a bluff - and the bluff was called. The Assad regime has followed a boiling frog strategy in its war against the rebels, carefully escalating in slight increments to test whether the international community will react. Now the regime is toying with the possibility that chemical weapons may still yet ensure its survival, and their initial experiments have not prompted any kind of response.

For Israeli officials who are being asked to base many of their future security calculations on the promise that President Obama will do whatever it takes to stop Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon, this makes uncomfortable reading. If a "red line" in Syria turns out to be illusory, who is to say the one in Iran is any more concrete? This is the core anxiety behind Israel's latest attack in Damascus.

The target of the attack is telling. The targets were a shipment of long-range missiles being sent from Iran to Hezbollah via Syria, but it was no coincidence that they happened to be in high-profile Syrian military facilities at the time they were struck. Israel has its red lines too, and these include the shipment of chemical weapons and advanced missile systems to Hezbollah. With President Obama's red line apparently a bluff, the Israeli security establishment made loud and clear to Syria, Iran and Hezbollah in one fell swoop that its are still as clear as ever.

Syria likely has little choice in continuing to acquiesce in the shipments of weapons to Hezbollah via its territory. The last thing the Assad regime needs now is a war with Israel, but it is now far too weak to call the shots itself: being a transhipment point for missiles designed to rain down on Israeli civilians is the price it pays for the continuing support of Iran and Hezbollah in its battle against the rebels.

Indeed, the Assad regime's reliance on foreign forces for its survival has become all the more blatant in recent months. There is strong evidence that Hezbollah forces have directly engaged Syrian rebels in combat. Meanwhile, the extent of Tehran's influence over Assad was demonstrated earlier this year when the regime released over 2,000 prisoners in exchange for the return of a mere 48 Iranian Revolutionary Guards captured by the rebels. Given the extent of Assad's reliance on them for survival, if Iran wants the shipments to continue then continue they shall.

Hence the real target of the attack in Damascus was Iran, not Syria. It is the latest and most public act in the "shadow war" raging between Iran and Israel, with Syria merely the stage. As is so often the case in civil wars, the collapse of the government's authority invites the intervention of outside powers. Barack Obama has been hesitant to add the U.S. to the long list of nations seeking to have a decisive influence over Syria's future, but the Israeli strike only adds to the pressure for him to do so.

As Senator John McCain has pointed out, the ease with which Israel penetrates Syrian air space to destroy key targets makes a mockery of the argument that the country's air defences are a deterrent to American intervention. There are other, very good reasons why Obama has been hesitant to take the plunge. But as the shadow war between Israel and Iran breaks out into the open and the threat of a regional war grows greater, the pressure on Obama to intervene will only increase.

But even with American intervention, the basic problem would remain: with Assad's regime gone and the rebels fragmented and likely unable to agree on the shape of a post-Assad future, the country would plunge further into chaos and remain a plaything of outside forces. The only difference would be that now U.S. credibility would be on the line in determining the outcome. One would have to be very clear about where one's red lines lay before taking on such a responsibility.

Is it too late to stop Syria's descent into hell? Since the uprising against the despotic Bashar al-Assad began in March 2011, 70,000 people have lost their lives, one million refugees have fled across the border into the neighbouring countries of Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, and four million Syrians - a fifth of the population - have been internally displaced. In recent days, the Assad regime has been accused of using chemical weapons in Aleppo and the rebels tried (but failed) to assassinate the Syrian prime minister in Damascus.

The popular uprising long ago morphed into an armed insurgency, backed by a motley alliance of the United States, Europe, Turkey, the Gulf states and... al-Qaeda. Syria, a secular state, has been engulfed in the flames of a vicious, sectarian civil war in which both sides want to kill their way to victory. Viable solutions of the diplomatic, non-violent variety are few and far between. "Syria poses the most complex set of issues that anyone could ever conceive," declared General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, in March.

The clamour for a military intervention in Syria is getting louder - especially following the (as yet unsubstantiated) chemical weapons claims. On the right, there's the US senator and Republican former presidential candidate John McCain, who, in recent years, hasn't come across a war he didn't want the US to fight. The Obama administration, McCain told NBC on 28 April, should arm the rebels, impose a no-fly zone and "be prepared with an international force to go in and secure these stocks of chemical and perhaps biological weapons".

On the left, there's the French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy, one of the driving forces behind Nato's 2011 war in Libya. In an interview with me for al-Jazeera English, which will be broadcast in June, he said "there is no question" that a military intervention in Syria, beginning with a no-fly zone, is "doable". When I asked him how he could be so confident, he shrugged: "Bashar al-Assad is weak... a paper tiger."

If only. Assad may be a loathsome dictator but that doesn't change a central fact: that he continues to command the support of a significant chunk of Syria's population (Alawites, Christians, some secular Sunnis). Nor does it change his air defences, which are far superior to those of Muammar al-Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein and Mullah Omar. Syria is believed to have up to 300 mobile surface-to-air missile systems and about 600 fixed missile sites. Oh, and did I mention the chemical weapons?

The experts are much more honest about the limits of military action than the Lévys and McCains of this world. Dempsey, America's top soldier, has said that he can't see a military option that would "create an understandable outcome". His opposite number in the UK, General Sir David Richards, the chief of the defence staff, has told ministers, "Even to set up a humanitarian safe area would be a major military operation," according to the Sunday Times of 28 April.

The reality is that even the best-intentioned humanitarian intervention could end up costing hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent lives. Those who flippantly claim that life couldn't get any worse for the Syrian people should be reminded of Algeria (ten years; 200,000 dead), Lebanon (15 years; 170,000 dead), the Democratic Republic of Congo (ongoing; five million dead) and Iraq (ongoing; 600,000 to a million dead).

Let's be clear: diplomacy, whether of the coercive or the non-coercive variety, isn't a panacea. So far sanctions haven't worked and the Russians continue to bat for Assad in the UN Security Council chamber.

But isn't it depressing to witness how the west's interventionists are always waiting for diplomacy to fail? Their targets - Slobodan Milosevic, the Taliban, Saddam, Gaddafi and now Assad - are always latter-day Hitlers: crazy, irrational, immune to political or diplomatic pressure. To negotiate is to appease.

It is a simplistic, Manichaean view of the world. Yet as the then leader of the Syrian opposition movement in exile, Moaz al-Khatib, acknowledged in September 2012: "Negotiation is not surrendering to the cruelty but it is choosing the lesser of two evils." (Al-Khatib has since been smeared by some of his fellow rebels - most of whom, admittedly, crave a western military intervention - as an Assad apologist. He has had to stand down as opposition leader.)

Listen to Haytham al-Manna, the anti-interventionist spokesman for the opposition National Co-ordination Committee, whose brother was killed by the Assad regime. "We must adhere to a negotiated political solution in this difficult phase so as to give every Syrian a chance to see the end of destruction," he wrote in the Guardian on 18 April.

"We cannot let the bloodbath go on like this," Lévy told me. However, there is little evidence to suggest that sending in our bombers or arming the rebels will ratchet down, rather than ratchet up, the violence. Remember: weapons are fungible. We have no way of preventing the al-Qaeda-affiliated members of the opposition from getting hold of bombs and bullets supplied by Britain and France. Nor does anyone have a credible plan of action for the day after Assad falls.

The west should be pouring water, not fuel, on the Syrian fire. Our ministers should be putting pressure on, and offering incentives to, Moscow to detach itself from Damascus; our diplomats should be trying to convince the Gulf states to rein in the rebels, especially those of the ultra-Islamist, hand-chopping variety; our lawyers should be threatening Assad and his underlings with International Criminal Court indictments.

It may be that none of these options works. But, a decade on from the US-led invasion of Iraq, the alternative - all-out war - is too dreadful to contemplate.

Mehdi Hasan is political director of the Huffington Post UK and a columnist for the New Statesman where this post also appears. His new al-Jazeera interview series, "Head to Head", will begin airing on 7 June

Foreign secretary William Hague is considering making a dramatic public plea for the return of the last former British resident held inside Guantánamo Bay, as fresh reports indicate that the treatment of prisoners within the camp continues to deteriorate.

In the wake of President Barack Obama's renewed promise on Tuesday to close the prison, the foreign secretary has told MPs that he will escalate efforts to bring Shaker Aamer home to his family in south London.

Hague has yet to make a statement since Obama's pledge, but Tory MP Jane Ellison revealed that, during a meeting with MPs campaigning for Aamer's release, he had raised the option of upping the ante through a public plea.

The ten things you need to know on Sunday 5 May 2013...

1) DEPUTY COMMONS SPEAKER ARRESTED FOR RAPE

It's Nigel Evans MP.

"Top Tory arrested for rape," declares the Sunday Mirror.

"Deputy speaker in rape arrest," says the Sunday Times.

"Top Tory arrested over 'rape'," is the headline in the Sunday Telegraph.

"Tory deputy speaker in gay rape arrest," screams the Sun on Sunday.

The Mail on Sunday goes with: "Deputy Speaker arrested over gay rape."

The Mirror's Vincent Moss, who broke the story late last night, reports:

"Shockwaves reverberated around Westminster yesterday as news of senior Tory Nigel Evans' arrest emerged.

"The Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons was held on suspicion of raping one man and sexually assaulting another between July 2009 and March this year. Both are in their 20s.

"A Whitehall source said PM David Cameron and Mr Evans’ boss, Speaker John Bercow, had both been informed.

"Detectives swooped on the MP’s ­cottage in the Lancashire village of Pendleton yesterday morning.

Evans, a former vice chairman of the Conservative Party and ex-shadow Welsh secretary, has been deputy Commons speaker since 2010 and MP for the safe Tory seat of Ribble Valley since 1992. He revealed he was gay in December 2010, saying he was "tired of living a lie".

Having been bailed by the police last night, a pale, bespectacled Evans appeared outside his home in Pendleton this morning to express a "sense of incredulity" at the allegations. Referring to the complaints as "completely false", he said they had come from two men who "until yesterday, I had regarded as friends...and I cannot understand why they have been made, especially as I have continued to socialise with one as recently as last week."

Can Evans stay on as deputy Commons speaker as the criminal investigation continues? Defence Secretary Philip Hammond this morning suggested it might be difficult for him to do so "under such scrutiny".

2) ISRAEL HITS SYRIA

If you thought things couldn't get any worse in Syria, think again. While the rest of us have been arguing about whether or not the west should mount a military intervention in that country, Israel has gone and launched an attack on its own - from the Sunday Times website:

"Israeli rockets struck a military research centre on the outskirts of Damascus earlier this morning, Syrian state television reported, after a series of explosions shook the capital.

"An intelligence official in the Middle East confirmed that Israel launched an airstrike in Damascus and said the target was a cache of advanced guided Iranian-supplied missiles believed to be on their way to the militant group Hezbollah, based in Lebanon."

There has, as usual, been no condemnation whatsoever of Israel's actions from the US or UK governments - William Hague went on Sky this morning to say he "respected" Israel's right to defend itself. Can you imagine the reaction in Western capitals if, say, Iran had launched an aerial attack on Syrian rebels? Or the Lebanese government? The Jewish state, it seems, is the only state in the region which can violate its neighbours' borders and airspace at will, in pursuit of its own imagined 'national security'.

But the fact is that Israeli involvement in the Syrian civil war will only ratchet up tensions, further prevent a diplomatic settlement and increase the likelihood of a wider and catastrophic regional conflagration.

3) CAMERON'S UKIP HEADACHE

Westminster's man of the moment, Nigel Farage, has been on the Andrew Marr programme this morning and confirmed he'll be standing for a parliamentary constituency come the 2015 general election - but won't be standing for Ukip in any by-elections between now and then. He wants to concentrate on causing an "earthquake" in British politics in next year's Euro elections. The problem is, despite Ukip's strong showing in Thursday's local elections, it is still quite hard to take the party seriously - asked what cuts to public spending he'd make to try and balance the budget, Farage listed... wait for it... international aid, quangos and our contributions to the EU. That didn't quite add up to £120bn the last time I checked...

The Tory Party, however, does have to take the Ukip threat seriously - the Faragistes could cost the Cameroons a majority at the next election. The Observer splashes on "Tories call for rapid Europe vote to halt Nigel Farage surge". So does the Sunday Telegraph, which reports:

"Twenty Conservative MPs today step up pressure on David Cameron to hold a European Union referendum before the next general election.

"... The MPs want to see a 'mandate referendum' as early as next May in which the public will be asked whether they want the Government to negotiate a 'new relationship with the EU based on trade and political co-operation'.

"Senior Tories including John Redwood, Bernard Jenkin and David Davis are leading the campaign, which is gathering momentum..."

Defence secretary and arch-Eurosceptic Philip Hammond appeared on the Marr show to say that "we should do everything we can to reassure people" that the referendum will happen, that the Tories should publish a "draft bill" ahead of the general election but that "we could not get a bill through this parliament" because of Labour and the Liberal Democrats. That'll go down well with the Europhobes...

Meanwhile, the Ukip treasurer, Stuart Wheeler, has made a mischievous intervention in the Dave v Boris saga, telling the Sunday Times that his party would prefer to do a deal with the Tory mayor of London, rather than the incumbent (Tory) PM, in the run-up to the next general election:

"Stuart Wheeler, the multimillionaire former Tory donor, said it was 'much more likely' that his party could work with the mayor of London than the prime minister on a potential pact in certain constituencies in the 2015 general election.

"Nigel Farage’s party does not trust Cameron to deliver a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU and believes Johnson is a truer Eurosceptic."

"... Ukip insiders indicated last night that Farage shared Wheeler's view."

4) GOODBYE FOREIGN AID?

Talking of foreign aid, an under pressure David Cameron may now be on the same side as populist Nigel Farage - from the Observer:

"David Cameron is risking a major fracture in the coalition after deciding to renege on his promise to enshrine foreign aid spending in law as he attempts to pacify the right wing of his party.

"The Observer can reveal that the flagship policy – promised in the 2010 coalition agreement between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats – will not be in Wednesday's Queen's speech and will not now come to pass under this government. Under pressure from rebellious backbenchers, the prime minister has privately ruled out legislation to guarantee that 0.7% of the country's gross national product (GNP) is spent on helping the world's poorest countries."

Labour's shadow international development secretary Ivan Lewis tells the paper that the PM "is a weak leader vacating the centre ground to appease the right in his own party and stem the tide of Tory votes to Ukip. Not enshrining 0.7% in law will make it easier for the Tories to siphon off aid funds to military and tied aid instead of focusing on our unfinished mission to end global poverty."

5) WHEN YOU'RE IN A HOLE...

From the Independent on Sunday's splash:

"George Osborne is pushing ahead with a massive nationwide road-building programme despite high-level concerns from ministers and Department for Transport (DfT) officials that there is little evidence it will boost the economy.

"The Independent on Sunday has learnt of serious doubts across Whitehall about the Chancellor's insistence that new roads are built when public money could instead be used to mend Britain's crumbling highways and local streets... road use has been steadily falling for at least five years, undermining a key plank of the Chancellor's strategy. There is also a backlog of £10.5bn worth of repairs to roads – a fraction of what it would cost to build new highways."

Meanwhile, the Observer reports that a stubborn Osborne has no plans to change course on plan A for austerity:

"George Osborne will warn the International Monetary Fund that a U-turn on the government's budget plans would do more harm than good when officials from the Washington-based organisation arrive in London on Wednesday for two weeks of talks."

BECAUSE YOU'VE READ THIS FAR...

Watch this video of a baby goat playing on the back of a pig. You know you want to...

6) WILL HAGUE DO THE DECENT THING?

Let's hope and pray this story on the front of the Observer is true:

"Foreign secretary William Hague is considering making a dramatic public plea for the return of the last former British resident held inside Guantánamo Bay, as fresh reports indicate that the treatment of prisoners within the camp continues to deteriorate.

"In the wake of President Barack Obama's renewed promise on Tuesday to close the prison, the foreign secretary has told MPs that he will escalate efforts to bring Shaker Aamer home to his family in south London.

"... Concern is rising about the health of Aamer, who has spent more than 80 days on hunger strike. The US authorities admit that about 100 of the 166 detainees within the prison are currently on hunger strike, although lawyers estimate the true total is closer to 140, with a growing number, currently 21, being force-fed."

7) DAMN HUMAN RIGHTS

Meanwhile, the right-wing press continues to foam and froth over Britain's Human Rights Act - from the Sunday Telegraph:

"Two foreign criminals jailed for their part in English riots have been allowed to stay in this country because of their 'right to family life' under the Human Rights Act.

"Concern over the apparent abuse of human rights legislation has now prompted Theresa May, the Home Secretary, to draw up new laws to stop foreign criminals avoiding deportation. The measures will be in a new Immigration Bill which will be announced in this week’s Queen’s Speech."

8) ASHCROFT DOES GOOD

According to the Sunday Telegraph, leftie hate figure Michael Ashcroft, Tory peer, former Tory donor and ex-non-dom, "will be unveiled as the latest of the world’s wealthiest people to sign 'The Giving Pledge', making a public promise to dedicate most of his fortune to charity.

"Writing in The Sunday Telegraph, Lord Ashcroft says that his commitment will take shape over the “years and decades ahead”.

"He has made a will which leaves most of his wealth to a charitable foundation, which will be run by his family.

"'I have never been a great believer in inherited wealth,' he writes. 'During my career as an entrepreneur and businessman, I have been fortunate enough to have created wealth. It is the major proportion of these earnings that I intend to put to good causes.'

"The peer’s fortune, which he does not discuss, was recently valued in a newspaper rich list at £1.2 billion. The estimate suggests that charities will benefit from more than £600 million."

Perhaps Lord Ashcroft could have a word with the chancellor about the rate of inheritance tax if he's "never been a great believer in inherited wealth"...

9) ADAM AFRIYIE VS THE SUN

From the Sun on Sunday:

"A tycoon MP dubbed the 'Tory Barack Obama' has tried to gag The Sun.

"Adam Afriyie, 47 — at the centre of plot rumours against David Cameron — hit the roof as we researched his finances.

"The multi-millionaire, who owns two homes worth a combined £11.25million, even got lawyers to rush to the Press Complaints Commission just for us asking questions and BEFORE we printed a word."

I guess the Sun won't be backing Afriyie for leader if Dave crashes and burns come 2015...

10) NOT THAT CAMPBELL

From James Forsyth's Mail on Sunday column:

"A presentation by a member of the No 10 press office wouldn’t normally draw much of a crowd. But to the Civil Service’s surprise, a briefing on engagement with ethnic minority media drew huge interest... It was only when the invitation was shown to a member of Downing Street’s political staff that people realised the cause of the excitement: the talk was billed as being given by Alastair Campbell.

"But to the disappointment of many, it was not THAT Alastair Campbell but an unassuming press officer who shares the same name.

"However, as one source observed, the number of those wanting to come to see Campbell shows there are an awful lot of people in the bureaucracy pining for the old regime."

PUBLIC OPINION WATCH

From the Sunday Times/YouGov poll:

Labour 40
Conservatives 30
Ukip 12
Lib Dems 11

That would give Labour a majority of 110.

140 CHARACTERS OR LESS

@vincentmoss William Hague says UKIP is "popular vehicle at the moment for protest". But Tory MPs don't believe UKIP is a flash in the pan #Murnaghan

‏@PCollinsTimes If the Tories had been smart enough to back AV they'd have nothing to fear from UKIP. Serves them right.

@George_Osborne Just tried new beer from my local Tatton brewery. It's called Pennies from Eleven.

900 WORDS OR MORE

William Hague, writing in the Sunday Telegraph says: "If doing the right thing means a spell of unpopularity, so be it."

Adam Boulton, writing in the Sunday Times, says: "They’re all now making plans for Nigel."

Andrew Rawnsley, writing in the Observer, says: "David Cameron won't prosper by trying to outkip the Kippers."

Got something you want to share? Please send any stories/tips/quotes/pix/plugs/gossip to Mehdi Hasan (mehdi.hasan@huffingtonpost.com) or Ned Simons (ned.simons@huffingtonpost.com). You can also follow us on Twitter: @mehdirhasan, @nedsimons and @huffpostukpol

It's 2030; a tired and wrinkled UN envoy reclines awkwardly into an airplane seat and into an easy life. His time is spent meeting world leaders for photo ops and making futile speeches for global values. His life continues to be as it has always been, riddled with frustration for lack of progress. History has judged his Presidency of the USA symbolic but forgettable. Barack Obama feels that he missed an opportunity, while his real triumph has unraveled beneath him. He is bitter, but not because he's unaccredited. He doesn't know he was responsible for bringing American politics back to the middle, back from the hatred and chauvinism of previous decades.

Back in 2013, the US President has just reaffirmed his commitment to shut down Guantanamo Bay, the notorious detention centre in Cuba, which incarcerates 'enemy combatants' in the War on Terror. The prison is currently dealing with a widespread hunger strike among inmates as well as the constant controversy it creates relating to alleged human rights abuses. Many may celebrate the return of this issue onto the agenda as the detention centre is criticized as immoral, opaque and unhelpful in the fight against terrorism. But others will sigh despairingly, reminded of another promise unfulfilled by a President who brought such feverish optimism to the world. However focusing cynically on what happens within his two terms won't do credit to the more positive tectonic changes already in motion, cultivated by Obama's presidency.

This change has already been facilitated by Obama's capitalizing on population change. Demographics increasingly determine votes and Obama has won the demographic contest. Obama has cemented Democratic support in one particularly useful demographic: Latin Americans. Even prominent Republicans such as Marco Rubio (R-Fl) and John McCain (R-Ariz) have themselves admitted their party's failure to connect with Hispanics, who already number over 50 million in the US and are estimated to constitute nearly a 1/3 of the population by 2050. The changing population has already resulted in a demographically determined victory for Democrats in 2012 and the future doesn't look rosy for currently anti-immigration Republicans who must change or face electoral insignificance. I'd hope the Republican Party even in its current state of inadvertent, aggressive conservatism wouldn't sacrifice electoral credibility for ideology. A shift to the centre is now necessary for Republican survival.

Obama the "Communist Muslim Atheist" couldn't be more antithetical to the current Republican Party if he tried. He's young, black, unashamedly liberal and actually just as uncompromising as his right wing nemeses. The Republican shift rightwards made in reaction to him, has and will be their undoing. His unwillingness to concede to a kamikaze Right has only fuelled their frankly disturbing hatred for their President making them a perfect caricature of themselves- the party of raving, bucktoothed rednecks and racists in straw hats and white hoods. I do however doubt this is Obama's plan; no politician ambitious and self-centered would ever sacrifice a legacy of visible progress in office for a goal so foresighted and unaccredited. Nevertheless, Obama has dragged the Republican Party to an unwelcome crossroads- 'adapt for be marginalised' the signpost says.

Obama has also helped engender the beginning of the end for American Exceptionalism. Often hounded for 'apologising for America', the Obama Presidency has marked the internalisation of a global power shift Eastwards. The USA will not be the leading superpower by the end of the 21st century and this is slowly and uncomfortably getting into the stubborn American psyche. Not being the omnipotent world overlord is a deeply unsettling prospect for some Americans who have always been imperialists at heart. The dogmatic belief that the American way is the only way is being eaten at. This has already incited frustrated battle cries on the Right hoping to preserve the 'American Way'. These are the conservative death throws of a declining superpower. But in the long term Obama's willingness to lead multilaterally from behind rather than intervene from the front will contribute greatly to the irrevocable death of neo-conservatism.

The effects of the end of neo-conservatism go far beyond the realm of foreign policy. Exceptionalism has always forced America to use introspection for ideas starving itself of fresh political thought. Subsequently the US is perceived politically as backwards, stagnant and draconian. Congress is the laughing stock of the developed political world failing to push through legislation seen as basic in Europe. An ideological shift away from American domestic insularism would mark an unprecedented change in the philosophical foundation of US governance. Congress might one day see the sense in preventing criminals and the mentally ill buying an assault rifle at the their local Wal-Mart. Universal healthcare may not be eschewed as socialist; hell, socialism might even cease to be a swearword (don't get ahead of yourself Alastair!)

These changes may appear farfetched and utopian; polarisation of this kind has been seen before, but there are evident cracks appearing even in the seemingly ironclad ideological dynamic. This I believe indicates the start of gradual but significant change beyond anything Obama could have imagined. Demographic and ideological shifts are not short-term fixes but permanent determinants of elections. Barack Obama, the failed icon of liberal optimism undermined by ferocious merciless opposition and undemocratic political technicalities has won the ideological argument and unknowingly sparked a paradigm shift, the effects of which will be felt for decades.

The Huffington Post pictures of the day brings you the very best images from around the world chosen by our own photo editors, Elliot Wagland, Matthew Tucker and Tahira Mirza.

Only 12 per cent of Americans back arming the Syrian opposition movement a new poll has found, after President Obama suggested he would consider intervening in the civil war.

A new HuffPost/YouGov poll found that only 5 per cent would support the United States deploying ground troops to Syria, while 68 percent said they were opposed.

And 51 per cent of those asked opposed arming the opposition fighters battling President Assad's regime, compared to just 12 per cent who supported it.

Western airstrikes also only garnered the support of 16 per cent, with 49 per cent opposed. The figures showed the widespread opposition to US intervention in Syria crossed party lines, with Republicans, Democrats and independents largely in agreement.

On Tuesday, Obama strongly suggested he would order military action against Syria if it was proved Assad's government had used chemical weapons against the opposition.

Asked what action he would take, Obama said: "We would have to rethink the range of options that are available to us. Obviously there are options to me that are on the shelf right now that we have not deployed."

A separate YouGov poll conducted in March found that Britons were similarly opposed to getting further involved in the conflict, with 57 per cent against arming the rebels and only 16 per cent in favour.

The HuffPost/YouGov poll comes amid reports government forces have pushed into the centre of Homs, Syria's third largest city, in order to cleanse it of rebel forces.

David Cameron and French president Francois Hollande recently tried and failed to persuade the European Union to lift its arms embargo on Syria in order to allow the UK and France to supply the opposition with arms.

Last week Tory Mp Richard Ottoway, the chairman of the foreign affairs committee, said he believed the British government intended to unilaterally supply weapons to the opposition.

“The obvious next step is to arm the rebels. I think [foreign secretary] William Hague will take a decision and he is going to tell Parliament that is what we are doing,” he said.

Sir Mark Lyall Grant, Britain’s ambassador to the United Nations, recently warned that 10 million people, almost half the population, would be need to rely on foreign food aid by the end of the year.

The HuffPost/YouGov poll was conducted April 29-30 among 1,000 adults.

The joyously casual rally co-driver of news

The UK and Ireland has been festooned with talent shows this last decade, and have completely permeated (or is that punctured?) popular culture in that time. But it's got to the point where it seems the Irish government is using Britain's Got Talent as the template for abortion law. The legislation, a mere twenty years in the making, is finally filling the mould the X Case created. But, on the contentious issue of whether suicide should be grounds for an abortion (I say contentious, the Irish public have twice voted that it should be), a bloody panel of three bloody doctors will rule on whether there are sufficient grounds or not and another three for an appeal process, which couldn't be more macabre or pathetically ridiculous if Louis Walsh and yer wan from Shakespeare's Sister were on the panel. Well, I say it couldn't be any more macabre, on Thursday morning Health Minister James Reilly has admitted that, while it wasn't the intention of the legislation, a woman could end up seeing out her pregnancy in a psychiatric ward..But hey, as long as it wasn't the intention, eh?

One man who'd probably love to be the casting vote in ant abortion judging panel is Peter Matthews, backbench Fine Gael TD and, after his performance this week, destined to stay that way. In the latest battle on Irish TV between logic and unicorns, he was asked if it was an acceptable risk for a woman to have to carry on with a pregnancy that could seriously damage her health, he replied "sure we're all going to end up dead anyway". And this is the pro-life guy.

Over across the pond UKIP's leader Nigel Farage is still talking up an electoral breakthrough that's been promised for nearly as long as abortion legislation has in Ireland. It looks like this time he may have a point, with UKIP showing 22% in some polls. This is despite the fact that Comedy Nige's party appears to choose its candidates through promotional token collections in racist crisps packets. One candidate, Alex Wood, was suspended after pictures surfaced on his Facebook of him Nazi saluting and clenching a knife between his teeth like he's Gob Bluth. In a stupefying series of excuses, it was variously claimed he was "reaching for a camera" to stop his girlfriend taking pictures of him posing as a plant, although he reverted to more mainstream excused when he told the BBC that his Facebook was hijacked and taken out of context. Don't you hate it when someone de-contextualises your Facebook?

Elsewhere that other notorious racist, comedian Reginald D Hunter, caused an hilariously overblown reaction to a gig he did at the PFA on Monday. His terrible crime was doing his routine because he was asked, and the people who asked him appearing to have never seen his uncompromising and thought provoking shtick. Amidst a blur of hand-washing, hand-wringing and hand-back-the-money-ing, Hunter, responded unusually, creating a Facebook photo album of searing genius. Referring to the gig as "irony's annual night off" he posted photos of "the horrible aftermath", replete with Hunter's manic grins with obviously well-disposed audiences and captions like "This man approaches Reginald D Hunter to ask him to explain the plot of Django Unchained". Even if he does have to give back the money he was apparently paid as part of a verbal contract (?!) with the PFA, I'm sure given the The Passion of St Tibulus Factor his upcoming concerts will recoup the money handily.

Meanwhile in contrast Barack Obama's normally hostile audience was a lot more sanguine for the White House Correspondents Dinner, where he cracked jokes about his days as a strapping young socialist Muslim and Daniel Day Lewis playing him in the movie of his life. If he could get Gitmo closed as easily as he could get laughs, he'd be landed.

Ukip has suspended a member who allegedly made racist jokes on Facebook, saying he would destroy mosques, burn Muslims and posted pictures of Obama and his wife mocked up to look like chimpanzees.

North Yorkshire Police are investigating whether pensioner Tony Nixon, from Guisborough, committed any offence on the social networking site.

It is understood Mr Nixon had been canvassing for Ukip in Stokesley, North Yorkshire, ahead of Thursday's local elections.

His Facebook account listed pages he "liked", including numerous English Defence League sites and ones expressing strong anti-Muslim sentiments.

Simon Cressy, a researcher for the anti-racist pressure group Hope Not Hate, accessed the Facebook page after he befriended Mr Nixon.

There were also racist jokes about destroying mosques, burning Muslims or knocking over a Pakistani with a bus.

Mr Nixon also apparently wrote how he knew after canvassing 800 homes for Ukip that the main issue of public concern was immigration.

One post said Ukip "is a patriotic party which wants us to get back our sovereignty".

Another added: "If you are wondering about the EDL I tell you that it is not a political party but a street movement which has no membership. Its hard work has greatly helped in the rise of Ukip."

A Ukip spokesman said: "We are shocked to learn about the views of Tony Nixon expressed on Facebook, which are not representative of Ukip.

"His membership has been suspended pending an urgent investigation. We do not tolerate members with any links to BNP, EDL or other extremist parties.

"We do not condone racist or any other inappropriate comments and regard them as totally abhorrent and anyone else discovered acting in such an appalling way will be thrown out of the party."

A spokesman for North Yorkshire Police said: "We are aware of the issue and officers are investigating to establish if any offences have been committed. It would not be appropriate to comment further until these inquiries are completed."

Mr Nixon was not available for comment.

Mr Cressy said: "Tony Nixon is an example of some of the members of Ukip - not all of them - and the party needs to shed them.

"Until they get rid of people like Tony Nixon, we cannot take them seriously as a political party."

As the Ministry of Defence confirmed that the RAF carried out its first drone strike operated from the UK this week, the question of whether the use of unmanned drones to target enemies is an ethical, or even effective, form of warfare is set to rise up the political agenda.

The MoD claims that drones play a vital role supporting military operations in Afghanistan and helps to save the lives of British forces, allies and those of Afghan civilians, while critics, including Reprieve's Hilary Stauffer, say that drones put civilians at unnecessary risk and allow politicians to make it easier to launch military interventions.

Conveniently, last week the Oxford Union debated the motion: 'This House Believes Drone Warfare is Ethical and Effective'. Here, two Oxford students, Konstantinos Chryssanthopoulos and Hasan Dindjer, bring the debate to the Huffington Post UK and argue whether the use of drones is acceptable.

Can they change your mind?

President Obama hasn't delivered on his promises on Guantanamo Bay and is unpatriotic in keeping the prison open, according to the prison camp's former chief prosecutor

Amid an on-going hunger strike by 100 detainees, Colonel Morris Davis, who worked at the base in Cuba between 2005 and 2007, told The Huffington Post that the president needed to "fulfil his promise" made in 2009 to close the controversial prison set up by George W Bush to hold terror suspects.

Speaking on HuffPost Live, the colonel said Obama "had a good talk in the past and hasn't delivered on it".

"It's fundamentally un-American to keep people locked away indefinitely without trial, so he needs to follow through on that.

"We used to say we are the 'land of the free and the home of the brave', we spent the last 11 years living like the constrained and the coward."

On Tuesday Obama insisted he still wanted to close the camp. He made the comments at a press conference in Washington as 100 of the 166 detainees stage a hunger strike to protest against their continued incarceration.

"I don't want these individuals to die," Obama said. "Obviously the Pentagon is trying to manage the situation as best as they can. But I think all of us should reflect on why exactly are we doing this? Why are we doing this?"

He added: "I continue to believe that we need to close Guantanamo. I think it is critical for us to understand that Guantanamo is not necessary to keep us safe. It is expensive, it is inefficient, it hurts us in terms of our international standing, it lessens cooperation with our allies on counterterrorism efforts, it is a recruitment tool for extremists. It needs to be closed," he said.

Davis said the "patriotic thing to do" would be for the US authorities to give the detainees their day in court. "I don't know if he [Obama] wants his legacy to be the continuation of this black hole we have had at Guantanamo," he said.

Davis, who served in the US Air Force for 25-years, has started an online petition calling on the president to shut the prison camp.

The petition states: "There is something fundamentally wrong with a system where not being charged with a war crime keeps you locked away indefinitely and a war crime conviction is your ticket home."

Two separate lightning quick reactions to President Obama's news conference on Tuesday characterized him as a "bystander" to his own presidency. Both criticized the President for talking about his stalled legislative agenda in passive terms, as if they were things that just "happened," rather than failures his own inaction had helped to bring about. To my mind, the indictment is particularly apt in Obama's odd characterization of the debacle that is Guantanamo Bay.

The President rightly noted that the prison camp is "expensive...inefficient...and hurts [the U.S.] in terms of our international standing." He stated categorically that "it needs to be closed." And he then placed the blame for its continued existence squarely on Congress's broad (and eminently fallible) shoulders, "despite the fact that there are a number of folks who are currently in Guantanamo who the courts have said could be returned to their country of origin or potentially a third country."

Let's make this a more "active" exchange: Mr. President, during your tenure, "the courts" have historically had very little to do with Guantanamo Bay. It was, in fact, a Task Force that you set-up through Executive Order 13492 which determined the "status" of all individuals currently detained at Guantanamo Bay. It was your Task Force that condemned nearly 50 men to indefinite detention because they were "too dangerous to transfer but not feasible for prosecution." It was your Task Force that relegated 30 Yemeni men to a terrible limbo state of "conditional detention" because the security situation in that country is not currently favourable for their return. The remaining men have been categorized by your Task Force as either "approved for transfer" or "referred for prosecution," which is the only place "the courts" make an appearance.

Mr. President, you also stated that you had asked your team "to review everything that's currently being done in Guantanamo, everything that we can do administratively, and I'm going to re-engage with Congress to try to make the case that this is not something that's in the best interests of the American people." Engagement is always a worthwhile pursuit, Mr. President, and you're correct that Congress' love affair with the National Defense Authorization Act is terribly misguided. But perhaps it's time for some self-reflection. For instance, it may have been easier to transfer people from Guantanamo if the Office for the Special Envoy for the Closure of Guantanamo Bay had remained open. The international community became confused about your commitment to closing the prison when Ambassador Fried unceremoniously switched jobs.

In a similar vein, Guatnanamo defense counsel have been getting some mixed messages since you took office. For example, what did your Administration hope to gain through the proposed new rules of engagement that would have let the military authorities at Guantanamo decide when and how lawyers could communicate with their clients? Fortunately, the Justice Department ultimately dropped its appeal of that issue, because the military's recent antics at the base (force-feeding hunger strikers, Smoke-Alarm-Gate et al) do not inspire any confidence in their decision-making skills.

So, even though lawyers can still--technically--meet with their clients, practically speaking, it's harder to do so than ever. It was a bold move by the Navy to try and block the only commercial flight to the base, and establish in its place a $17,000 one-day charter flight that could be approved on a case-by-case basis by the base commander. Since nearly all Guantanamo lawyers work pro bono, that would have increased out-of-pocket costs considerably. Thankfully, in the end, this creatively conceived roadblock to client access quietly faded away. Given that IBC's new reduced schedule only flies on Mondays and Fridays, it's still less than ideal for lawyers who might not be able to commit to an entire week away. But it's better than nothing - which is the status quo that Guantanamo defense counsel have become accustomed to ever since you took office, Mr. President.

Mr. President, it is true that the NDAA and rampant fear-mongering make it difficult to close Guantanamo Bay. But it's not impossible - and the power doesn't rest solely with Congress. You have the ability to make an immediate difference:

Lift the restrictions on the transfer of Yemenis. Their government wants them back, and they want to go home.

Appoint someone to replace Dan Fried. Make her high-profile, and make her answerable directly to you.

Empower Chuck Hagel and John Kerry to make use of the National Security Waiver in Section 1028(d) of the NDAA, and empower your diplomatic corps to charm our allies into accepting the "cleared 55" for re-settlement.

These actions could halve Guantanamo's population, and set an authoritative tone for the remainder of your second term.

Doing nothing is often the worst choice. No one will accuse you of being a bystander if your legacy is closing Guantanamo.

Last week the Oxford Union debated the motion 'This House Believes Drone Warfare is Ethical and Effective'.

Konstantinos Chryssanthopoulos makes the case for the motion.

As humanity has evolved so too have the methods with which we wage war. From the longbow, to the gun and even the nuclear bomb, every development has been about being able to inflict more damage to our enemy at a lower human cost. Now in the 21st Century there is a new weapon that governments have at the disposal, namely, the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), or more commonly referred to as drones. Although instead of causing mass damage, these drones have the accuracy to carry out assassinations on foes thousands of miles away.

Indeed, their use has been surrounded by numerous criticisms which stem primarily from the belief that they are different to all weapons that have preceded them. When this very debate was held at the Oxford Union on Thursday 25 April, the opposition rightly indentified that drone strikes come with a lower the cost of engagement and they argued that this leads to their more frequent use by distancing the actors from the physical attack. They also referred to a 'PlayStation mentality' that makes using a drone strike easier for any person that the killing should be because of how disconnected they are from the result of their act.

However, this latter thesis does not have sufficient evidence to be fully proved and furthermore, as the proposition highlighted several times there is a very thorough and clear process that occurs before any drone strike is used preventing a 'trigger happy' approach. Moreover, the former argument concerning the lower cost of engagement is in fact an argument that does a lot more to support drone warfare rather than undermine it. By having a lower cost of engagement, high risk missions can be performed without putting at risk the lives of military personnel. This is certainly no bad thing; after all if even a single life of a serviceman can be saved during a war then surely it is a nation's duty to choose that course of action.

Another point that must be considered is that if we were to ban drone warfare what the alternatives would be. The opposition in this debate drew attention to the idea of non-intervening or attempting to capture the targets however in reality, neither option is usually viable. The high profile targets are simply too far into hostile territories for soldiers to capture and often in areas surrounded by civilians making an air strike too risky. It has been suggested that diplomacy might be the right answer but it must be remembered that the enemy whom is targeted by governments using drones are not nations; they are extremist individuals who themselves do not abide by the laws of war and would not be open to negotiate.

The opposition in this debate also will question the accuracy of this technology; they question the pinpoint nature of the weapon and quote various numbers of civilian deaths to prove this point. However, what must be made clear is that while drones are not perfectly precise they are far more precise than nearly all other weapons. This is largely due to the longer 'loiter time' they can sustain. What this means is that they can hover over a target for hours on end waiting for the exact moment when there will be no collateral damage or at its lowest. Compared to a pilot in a plane or a soldier on the ground their ability to survey is unparalleled. Moreover, it must be remembered that there is no weapon out there that is totally accurate but drones are far more effective as they only strike when they have the best chance and can never be rushed into acting.

Additionally we must consider the result of using drone strikes, it cannot be disputed that the leadership and weapon factories of organisations such as Al Qaeda and the Taliban have been severally damaged as a result of their use. Many key figures that were hidden deep in the tribal regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan would have been totally inaccessible to any other form of attack and yet are always susceptible to drone strikes. Surely this argument highlights just how efficient drones are as they have effectively destroyed these groups' leadership and weapons without risking a single soldier's life.

The final issue that must be addressed is that of legality, in the current theatre of war the line between combatants and non-combatants has been severely blurred. The enemy no longer is a nation, nor do they wear a uniform. They hide out of reach of any army and use anonymity as a weapon. Therefore, the traditional method of warfare can no longer be used, to win such a war nation's armies and weapons must adapt. Drone warfare is one such evolution, it allows nation to strike its enemies where they hide. As the battlefield has become delocalised so too must the weapons' reach and drone warfare achieves just that.

In conclusion, while the technology is far from perfect, drone warfare is not only a legitimate and legal weapon but also a necessary one given the circumstances of conflicts these days. For the opposition to suggest it is neither ethical or efficient is both false and naive as no other alternative could adequately achieve the success seen through the use of drones.