Damascus understood Tehran's message, i.e. that “the axis of the resistance will not be defeated." Hence, a few hours after Secretary General of the Iranian National Security Council Sa'id Jalili left Syria on his way to Iraq, the army launched its land attack against Aleppo, in order to defeat the “enemies of the axis" in the Salahuddin neighborhood. The message which was conveyed by Jalili to President Bashar al-Assad was clear in its encouragement of the Syrian regime to rush the military settlement with the troops of the Free Army, after the latter was able to deplete the regime throughout a long stage with the opening of distant fronts at the same time. The Iranian envoy also adopted the regime's tale regarding the fact that there is no opposition, no oppositionists carrying weapons to topple it and no domestic conflict, but rather a cosmic war and an axis led by the “Great Satan," conspiring to undermine a “resistance in which Syria is a main pillar." And while the Salahuddin battle appeared to be a miniature replica of that war – whose length and costly price are difficult to predict – some hypocrites read into the message of the Iranian command as being a sign of concern in Tehran, over the repercussions of the collapse of the dominoes of an axis in which it invested a lot throughout decades. Hence, it is now facing two options: either to salvage itself and this regime as fast as possible, by providing it with the necessary equipment to increase the military pressures on the cities' fronts and prevent the Syrian army from accessing any supply lines (especially with Turkey), or confront the moment of truth in which Tehran can negotiate some sort of a deal. Nonetheless, the chances of seeing the regime save itself are collapsing fast in light of what was endured by the Syrians and the consequences of the consecutive defections, the last of which was the “earthquake" of Prime Minister Riad Hijab's dissidence soon after the death of the members of the crisis cell in an explosion that undermined the regime's foundations. Moreover, these chances are dissipating behind the delusional talk about a “national dialogue," in light of the fall of dozens of people every day. As to the West, it is linking Tehran and its axis to a fictive wager on persistence in the face of the flood of the revolution and the war. It is still reiterating that it has drawn the lessons from the Iraqi and Libyan experiences, that there will be no military intervention against the troops of the Syrian regime, that the regime and the opposition (the Free Army) can find a solution and that there will be no compromise with Iran over whichever alternative. Washington, Paris and London are aware of the fact that the meeting of twelve states in Tehran today will not change anything at the level of the regime, one whose use of heavy artillery and warplanes in the cities was condemned by 133 countries. And while the Iranian attempt appeared to be just for show – after Moscow chose to rationalize its daily campaign against the “armed men and terrorists" in Syria and following the third Russian veto at the Security Council – Jalili's tour to Damascus, Beirut and Baghdad seemed to constitute a strong message to the regional powers. This message is saying that Tehran will not remain silent in case any side intervenes to allow the Free Army to gain control over Aleppo and settle the battle in its favor, thus proclaiming the establishment of a buffer zone on the outskirts of the Syrian-Turkish border. And while some in Iran perceive Riad Hijab's defection as being the beginning of the last chapter at the level of the predicament in Syria – at a time when Ankara and Washington are preparing to contain the regional repercussions – Turkey's response to the threat of the Iranian chief of staff aimed at warning Tehran against the consequences of underestimating its capabilities. In reality, the Khamanei-Ahmedinejad command is in a state of panic, because no one knows whose turn will come after Syria, as it could be Iran, Turkey or any other state in the region. It is as though it is repeating what Gaddafi said after Saddam Hussein's assassination, and what is certain is that Jalili's visit to Baghdad will not be enough to turn the page of the Iraqi leaders' division over the way to deal with the Syrian file, or mobilize them all behind the “resistance axis" in preparation for the next chapter of the cosmic war. The Iranian envoy and his tour bring back to mind the Russian general who came out in Moscow to announce he was still alive and deny the rumors claiming he was killed in Syria. Thus, Jalili came to deny the death of the axis, the imminent fall of the regime in Damascus and the retreat of the Iranian role which was cracked in a way that will affect the walls of the regime in Tehran. It is consequently repeating that same “game," by hiding behind the diplomacy of the “wings," in the context of which Ankara's mediation is sought to ensure the release of the Iranians who were kidnapped in Syria, after having addressed warnings to the Turks in regard to the repercussions of their involvement in the bloodshed. There are mutual doubts, but also wagers on who will burn his fingers first, in parallel to the bloody confrontations in Syria. In the meantime, King Abdullah II's warning against the possibility of seeing the emergence of an “Alawi pocket" and the division of a country in case Damascus were to fall, is bringing Turkey closer to the crater of the volcano. The Syrian predicament is lengthy, along with the Turkish-Iranian one. As to the talk about sectarian tensions in the region during Jalili's visit to Baghdad, it probably conveys Tehran's concerns over the loss of the winning Iraqi card, in case the Syrian fire were to expand.
