The answer to this question might seem like fortune-telling, because the factors that would allow for ending this state of military and political attack and retreat are simply unavailable, and may well remain so for a long time. The regime of the Assad family still does not recognize that there is a Syrian camp facing it with which it can negotiate. Rather, there are only those it must kill. This is precisely what it has been doing for the past forty years, and not just for the 26 months since the start of the uprising against it. As for the opposition, it does not seem capable of achieving decisive victory, not for a lack of will but rather of means. The ruler of Damascus links the fate of his country to his own personal fate. His Deputy Foreign Minister, Faisal Meqdad, said in a statement to British newspaper The Guardian that “there will be no Syria if President Assad steps down; (...) Syria will no longer be on the map" – while the whole world bears witness to the fact that it is his remaining in power that is threatening his country's present and future. Yet what the world knows is one thing, and what it does is another. It is undisputable that Iran and its affiliates (Maliki's Iraq and Hezbollah's Lebanon) are exerting every effort to defend Assad and his regime – not out of love for him but rather to protect themselves and their own interests. However, one cannot understand how the rest of the world can continue to stand idly by and watch what is happening, merely expressing grief for the victims, and even pressuring those who are trying to support the Syrian opposition with what would allow it to withstand in the face of the colossal machine of destruction operated by the regime. The problem remains the same since March 2011. The international community is unable to play its role and drive Assad to accept a transitional period that is being called for in statements, meetings and conferences every day, with every major power clinging to a different interpretation of it. Moscow and Beijing still consider that a ceasefire should precede any political discussion, and this, as the regime understands it, means that opposition fighters should hand in their weapons and surrender. Meanwhile, Washington, Paris, London and the rest of the world call for starting by the transfer of Assad's powers to a temporary government, and this is in practice not feasible as long as the regime continues to receive support in the form of weapons, funds and fighters. It is a vicious circle everyone is going around without ever meeting. In fact, they probably do not wish to meet. Each side is waiting for the other to take a step towards them, and it is alright to wait as long as the losses are suffered only by Syria and by Syrians. As for the situation on the ground, it is in a state of marking blood-spattered time – some progress here, some retreat there, but without anyone being able to achieve complete victory. The regime, as Nabil El-Araby said, is “talking to itself", and sees only itself. The opposition is busy with its own divisions and with clarifying its identity, between “Al-Nusra Front" and “moderation". The West finds in declarations of extremism an appropriate pretext to continue to stand idly by and watch. And if this were to go on this way, predictions may prove true that the war in Syria will last for years and years. What could alter such a state of affairs? The Arabs do not hold an answer, and the bold step they took of granting the opposition Syria's seat at the Doha Summit alone is not enough. The Security Council with its five permanent members is paralyzed and shackled. The rebels alone are convinced that the suffering will not end until Assad and his regime are gone, but they also do not know when they will celebrate victory.
