The West is deploying pressures to bring the file of the Syrian “security solution” and the Iranian nuclear file back to the Security Council. In the first case, the superpowers are exploiting Damascus' thwarting of the Arab initiative, while in the second, they are relying on what was revealed by the International Atomic Energy Agency regarding “a nuclear warhead” project which Tehran has been trying to complete. The security “fingers” have been deterring the Syrians' uprising for about eight months and the alleged nuclear warhead is raising fear over the war scenarios that will distribute the catastrophes between the Gulf and Middle East regions. In the backdrop, the reality is gradually dissipating in regard to the enduring alliance between the two regimes in Tehran and Damascus. The latter have become the main object of the confrontation and are caught between the jaws of the blockade, after having flaunted for years the victory of their rejectionism over the “evils” of the superpowers. In reality, away from the details and current fate of this rejectionism in light of the “Arab Spring,” its revolutions and uprisings, each of the two wings of this alliance – i.e. the religious regime of Wileyat e-Faqih and the regime of the Baath party that describes itself as being secular (in a totalitarian way!) – has become incapable of offering help to the other, at least for the time being. Indeed, Damascus cannot engage in the “major confrontation” with Israel if Netanyahu's government directs missiles toward the Iranian nuclear facilities. As for Tehran, which is preoccupied with its domestic crises and the preparations for the scenario to “destroy Israel” – if the Netanyahu-Barack duo were to adopt the war option – it cannot interfere and save the Syrian regime if it were to face some sort of regional or international intervention. The confusion of the Syrian and Iranian allies is mounting, because the heavy dust over the peak of the “nuclear” mountain and on the arena of the collapse of the Arab initiative to settle the Syrian crisis is bound to cause the loss of the two wings of “rejectionism,” which is eroding due to the oppression and the lies. At this level, the possibilities appear bleak to all the sides just as they are wretched to the two wings, considering that they fall in the context of the search for the right timing for the “surgery,” instead of whether or not it will be carried out. Any intervention in Syria will not necessarily topple the regime, but will definitely topple the country's unity for a long period of time. On the other hand, any attack against Iran will firstly cast its shadows over Israel and impose its catastrophic results on the Arabs. As for the alternative – such as NATO's maritime blockade for example – it could extend the conflict with Tehran until after the toppling of the equation of its alliance with Damascus and the “rejectionist” affiliates, that do yet not know the final outcome of what they dub the hurricane of the “New Middle East.” Tehran is wagering on psychological deterrence, thus threatening to destroy the Dimona reactor should its nuclear facilities be the object of an attack. Likewise, Damascus is also relying on psychological deterrence in light of the Arabs' fear over Syria's unity and the spread of sectarian conflicts throughout the region. Consequently, these Arabs are insisting on giving additional chances to President Bashar al-Assad's regime, in the hope it would manage to contain the uprising and launch reformatory steps. But after the card of the Arab initiative was burned, the question revolves around whether or not they are capable of resisting the Western pressures seeking the tightening of the internationalization noose around the Syrian regime's neck. As for the pressures exerted on Iran through the exposure of Tehran's lies in regard to the nuclear file, they might preoccupy Khamanei-Ahmadinejad and keep them from throwing the last rescue rope to the “loyal ally” which allowed Tehran to control the Palestine and Lebanon cards for years – by proxy and then directly – until it became besieged in the trench of defending its own legitimacy. While Tehran's accusations to the IAEA of being politicized summon the lie of the WMDs in Iraq – despite Iran's record in misleading the Agency – the West's efforts at the level of the Iranian nuclear file bring back to mind the experience of the gradual blockade that the West imposed on Saddam Hussein's Iraq for years, ending with the toppling of the dictator. The Russian-Chinese sympathy towards the Syrian regime is dissipating with the collapse of the Arab initiative. Now, what concerns this regime is its reassurance about the fact that Turkey – which might be used by the West as the tip of the spear in the project to protect the Syrian civilians – is bound to assess the consequences of any open confrontation with Iran. However, this does not annul the question related to Tehran's ability to engage in a major war, at a time when its eyes are on the nuclear facilities, the Gulf waters and the Hormuz Strait, which it always threatens to shut down whenever signs emerge heralding a military strike to turn the page of the nuclear file once and for all. Will Iran and Syria stand before the Security Council? On top of the mountain of confrontation, there is the heavy dust of misleading, psychological deterrence and media wars. The knife of the sanctions is the easiest choice for the West, but it is much weaker than the sword of deceit, as no one can predict the maliciousness of the “Great Satan” if he were to brandish it.
