The Americans' optimism in regard to an imminent and definite revolution in Iran is bound to prompt Tehran to fiercely support the Syrian regime once again. Washington considers that the “revolutionaries” of the Islamic Republic are now learning from the Tunisian and Egyptian spring, and will learn later on from the Syrian one, which is why the Khamenei-Ahmadinejad command will block the winds of “spring” by recanting their understanding of the “legitimate demands” of the Syrian people, after they had adopted the talk about a “conspiracy” being concocted in foreign shadows to blockade, even remove, any “rejectionist” side. But on the opposite end of the American optimism in regard to Iran, there is the pessimism of United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon. Indeed, the latter anticipated the deferred visit of Arab League Secretary General Nabil al-Arabi to Damascus by oscillating between warning the Syrian command against time running out, and saying that time has actually ran out. By doing so, he was trying to hasten a decisive and “bold” reformative action which is no longer possible – as he said – thus calling for “coordinated” international measures. This expression, which hints to an alliance of superpowers to adopt these measures that are still unknown, serves the French approach which is condemning the Security Council's division over two equations: A carrot without a stick that is wanted by Moscow - although it has started to call for the discontinuation of the violence against the civilians in Syria - and a stick without a carrot wanted by the West. This could reach the point of imposing an air-ban that would strip the Syrian army of any cover for the activities of its units, for the monitoring of the crowds or even the use of helicopters inside the cities. These measures might also reach the level of an international warning to Damascus to pull out all the army elements and their equipment and lead them back to the barracks. And while the British “response” to Ban Ki-Moon was that military intervention in Syria was not on the table – unlike what was seen in Libya – Damascus will consider this message as being a “misleading” act and will rest assured over the Western yelling and the “silent” Arab initiative. Indeed, did it not consider that the European sanctions did not bother it as though it was asking for more? This arrogance brings back to mind the Iranian behavior with the P6 group of states concerned about the nuclear file. But in any case, neither Ban Ki-Moon is capable of unifying the ranks of the Security Council to launch an international intervention – not necessarily a military one – nor can the West easily detect the extent to which Moscow could go to stop the months of “mourning” and the cycle of killing in Syria. The difference between the rhetoric of the Kremlin and that of the Russian Foreign Ministry and the warning against a “sad fate” for President Bashar al-Assad in parallel to the stringency of Minister Sergei Lavrov vis-à-vis any inclination to internationalize Syria's crisis and revolution is a mere “tactical” detail. However, in reality, what is raising concerns over Damascus' fall in a major “trap” which it is hoping for, is imagining the ability to play on the contradictions in Russia or considering that Lavrov's positions are enough to deter the West's rush to internationalize the crisis. But who is misleading whom? Who is exerting pressures to hasten the launching of a new stage in the bloody Syrian spring? Who believes that Ban Ki-Moon holds the secret password or knows the exact timing, at a time when Syria's closest neighbors, i.e. Erdogan who has lost faith in its regime, does not seem to believe in America's good intention and its will to see President Al-Assad stepping down. Moreover, he does not seem reassured about the alternatives and the options in the face of the unknown, or about playing the role of the spearhead in any international intervention to topple the equation of violence and daily funerals in Syria. In the case of Al-Arabi, the secretary general of the Arab League whose reception was firstly accepted by Damascus after a period of hesitation before it was postponed for three days for “objective” reasons, this objectivity requires the recognition of the fact that his Arab mission will not exceed the level of clearing one's conscience, considering that the options are clear: A swift reform in the context of the thirteen articles of the initiative or additional violence which will gradually evolve into sectarian strife then international intervention. Damascus did not make the Arabs wait for Al-Arabi's mission, seeing how the first moment attempt was quickly folded. The regime believes it is being successful in its confrontation of the pressures and in the face of the “conspiracy” of trade-offs between the loss of “stability” and a peace with Israel that would bury “bitter” alliances. Once again, we are facing a Syrian tragedy, considering that neither the regime is capable of containing or crushing the revolution, nor has the blood of the martyrs changed the priority of “stability over reform.” And even that “stability” in the official language will only lead to the extension of the collective suicide which in Paris' language embodies a “crime against humanity.” The Libyan lesson quickly evaporated and the “conspiracy” grew to the liking of the regime. Short memory is an addiction in the region while Syria's night will be a long one.
