The mosque incident in Sana'a, the Syrian Jisr al-Shughour military campaign and the NATO messages conveyed by the bombing of Colonel Gaddafi's hideout, are all events that mark the beginning of a new stage of the Arab Spring earthquake, rather than a change in the rhetoric of the Yemeni, Syrian or Libyan regimes. This is true despite bitter facts, hundreds of victims, thousands of refugees and displaced in their own countries and in neighboring ones, as well as the massive international pressures being exerted. Indeed, following the serious injuries which President Ali Abdullah Saleh's face suffered inside the mosque, the head of the rule in Sana'a is still proceeding with his campaigns against the oppositionist “gangs.” He is still talking about his legitimacy, despite his inability to conceal the images of the millions of Yemenis who tortured him with their calls for his departure and their rejection of his return from his medical trip, except to step down. On the other hand, despite all the blood that was spilled in the Syrian cities and all the banners that were raised in crowded marches to demand freedom, the rule is still insisting on fooling itself by justifying the chapters of the mobile security solution to hunt down the “terrorist gangs.” As for the Colonel whose sight and tours in the streets of Tripoli have dissipated due to fears from NATO's raids, he is flaunting his ability to mobilize half a million Libyans in the confrontation of the “armed gangs.” Hence, no change occurred at the level of the regimes' rhetoric in Sana'aDamascus and Tripoli, despite the rivers of blood, the nightmare of destruction and the summoning of the fundamentalists' card and the stick of “Al-Qaeda,” at a time when the West, which is eager to complete the internationalization of human rights, is not concealing its intentions and preparing for the scenarios of war. While it is certain that it is squeezing the Russians in the corner of the Security Council to get them to change their understanding position vis-à-vis the conflicts of the Syrian regime – although they suddenly recanted their condemnation of what NATO was perpetrating in Libya under the cover of international legitimacy - it is not unlikely, this time around, to see Moscow abstaining from using the veto right when the Council votes on the condemnation of the oppression and violence toward the demonstrators in Syria. True, the problem resides, since the very beginning, in the absence of the rule's will to introduce reforms, in the choice to use bullets and tanks to contain what was dubbed a conspiracy and in paving the way before the march towards change, at a time when the marches of the Syrians were subjected to killing. But what is also true is that the rule itself did not offer anything that would convince anyone inside and outside of Syria that this killing is inevitable before opening the doors of democracy. Once again, the question on the table is the following: Is it too late for reform, while Turkey is issuing what appears to be a last call for a timetable and is standing at a mere short distance from France, which proclaimed the death of the Syrian regime's legitimacy? Moreover, are the pressures deployed by Paris, which is condemning the “massacres”, not complemented by Ankara's abstinence from deterring the displaced Syrians who are eluding the fist and terror of the security solution and the pursuit of the “gangs”? There is a distance between the “gangs” and “national” security, summarizing the tragedies of millions of Arabs in Yemen, Syria and Libya, considering that whenever the term “national” is matched with a local production, the “national” citizens must praise the authority for its efforts in the battle to eradicate “the conspiracy” and the “gangs” of freedom! Syria is facing two battles, since the West is preparing to transfer its nuclear file to the Security Council. In the meantime, regardless of the West's intentions and standards – that are lenient with Israel and slow with Iran – there is a growing confirmation of the size of the opportunity that was wasted by the regime in Syria, when it refused to reconcile with the street early on, in order to deter the foreign threats. Now, if the noose of the pressures is tightened around it, no loyalist or oppositionist will be able to prevent Syria from sliding toward trap of anarchy. Because the region is witnessing an earthquake era and the victims are Arabs, the concerns are increasing and extending from Tripoli's airspace to the Red Sea, with Britain sending a “military delegation” to a Yemeni neighboring state, while the sea is tempting Iran and prompting it to stage a show of power through the deployment of submarines. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's “wisdom” likely aimed at bringing back to mind the Syrians' ability to “manage their affairs” and settle problems whose existence he recognized between their government and people, after he announced that Iran has become “on the front line of the resistance against Israel.” Ahmadinejad did well this time around, considering he did not advise the Syrians to carry out a mobilization of another kind and increase the pressures on the disengagement line in the Golan, because the worst scenario for which Israel is preparing is a revised version of the American war on Iraq. So, should the wager be on Russia's rejection of the war, Obama's “deterrence” of Netanyahu or Israel's fears of those opposing killing?!
