The “Friday for International Protection” is the slogan raised by the Syrian opposition during yesterday's demonstrations. The slogan, along with the statements of the opposition leaders abroad, reveal the loss of any hope in reaching an understanding with the regime and corroborate the opposition's conviction in that it cannot remove the government with its own efforts, or through demonstrations, as well as economic and political pressures both domestically and abroad. Consequently, the only option left for it is to resort to the “international community,” i.e. the Security Council, to ensure the adoption of a decision to interfere and assign the willing countries (France, Britain and the United States) to implement it. However, this is impossible in light of the division seen within the Security Council, especially following the decisive statement of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev regarding the support of the regime in the face of any international resolution, and his belief in the fact that part of the opposition is involved in terrorism. The international divide, in addition to the rift affecting the ranks of the oppositionists, dictate the following questions vis-à-vis those demanding protection to reach power in Damascus: Is the slogan of toppling the regime realistic without a military intervention? Is this intervention realistic and possible in light of the regional and international circumstances related to Syrian issue? Are the countries that wish to topple the regime willing to assume the financial losses, knowing there is no oil wealth in Syria similar to the one in Libya to allow NATO to restore what it will spend on this war and increase its profit through reconstruction with the oil money as it happened and is still happening in Iraq? Moreover, if the military intervention in Libya now and in Iraq in the past aimed at acquiring the oil, should we not wonder about the goal behind the intervention in Syria? Is it not logical for the intervention, in this case, to aim at changing Damascus' position in regard to the regional equation and especially in regard to Israel? Is the opposition willing to change this policy? And who is pushing it toward that? Will this political change secure democracy and help achieve the rightful reforms that are demanded by the people? Furthermore, from which base will the military campaign be launched? Will the Arab surrounding allow it to be launched from its territories? Will Turkey sacrifice its domestic security to lead the NATO attack from its bases? Is it willing to open its border before the armed men of the opposition to attack the regime? Furthermore, will the Arabs and the opposition accept to see Israel playing that role? And is the Hebrew state willing to carry out the military attack following its experience in Lebanon in 2006? Any actual official in the opposition on the domestic arena will answer these questions with a no. However, the opposition abroad is another matter altogether. Indeed, some voices in it are demanding a military intervention, including Abdul Halim Khaddam who said that the oppositionists who are rejecting the intervention do not live in Syria, do not know it and do not realize that neither the regime nor its reformatory talk can be trusted. They are also saying there is no other choice but to topple it, but this position does not carry any response to the urgent questions, especially since the gradual escalation of the demands from reform under the supervision of President Bashar al-Assad to his toppling, along with his regime, are not based on a clear plan that would convince the internal arena - before the external one - and prevent the fall in the trap of civil war whose conditions are being consecrated by the day through the increase of sectarian and denominational divisions. There is no point in denying this reality, considering that its denial does not annul its existence. The opposition is going through a real predicament. It can neither back down nor move forward after it raised the ceiling of its demands and started rejecting any dialogue with the regime. For its part, the regime is also denying its presence, ratifying laws and organizing dialogues inside the universities “under the ceiling of the nation” as it is announcing. However, no one knows the height of this ceiling or the extent of its ability to recognize the demands, let alone implement them. Now that Medvedev announced he was standing alongside the regime and accused the opposition of being involved in terrorism, the latter must seek an alternative for foreign intervention, unless the side that promised to intervene plans on acting away from international legitimacy and on intensifying the smuggling of arms and the training of the armed men to deplete Syria and drown it in a long-lasting civil war.
