As the Syrian army closed down on the Baba Amr neighborhood in Homs which enjoys a symbolic value in the uprising against the regime, and as hundreds of civilians fell among dead and wounded, Hillary Clinton said that accusing Bashar al-Assad of being implicated in crimes against humanity would “complicate the solution.” But what solution is the American secretary of state talking about? During the last stage, Washington claimed it was awaiting the end of the presidential elections in Russia to see change at the level of Moscow's position toward the situation in Syria, which gave the impression that some sort of a deal was sealed between the two capitals and that its implementation will be witnessed at the right time. In addition, numerous questions were raised over the reason behind the presentation of a Western draft resolution on Syria before the Security Council without getting Moscow's prior approval, thus leading to the use of the veto right by the latter to obstruct it. At the time, it was said that the Americans intentionally pushed the Russians to confirm their protection of Al-Assad's regime, as this would allow them to pressure it in a better way later on. On the other hand, Washington soon eluded – via repeated statements – any wish to arm the Syrian opposition out of fear of the militarization of the uprising. It even seemed to be standing against its Gulf allies who issued public statements in this regard, and spoke about concerns surrounding the presence of Al-Qaeda organization in the opposition ranks to completely exclude the opposition's armament. Nonetheless, the real concern which was not revealed by Washington was reiterated by the Israeli officials who are worried about the opening of the Golan front if Al-Assad's regime were to be changed, and the arrival of weapons possessed by the Syrian army to the hands of others, namely Hezbollah, Hamas and even extremists who flourish in anarchy, which is currently the case in Libya. The Americans who learned the Iraqi lesson very well, after they thought that the dismantlement of Saddam's army would allow them to reconstruct it in accordance with their whims but saw its officers and soldiers turning into resistance fighters and its warehouses turning into an inexhaustible source of armament, do not wish to repeat the mistake, especially when Israel's security is at stake. Washington discovered that its current administration which came to organize chaos and compensate for the losses resulting from George Bush's term, is incapable of upholding the old positions of influence. Indeed, whenever it pulls out from a country it loses it, just as it had happened in Iraq and will happen in Afghanistan. Moreover, whenever it relinquishes an ally regime (Tunisia, Egypt and Libya), new powers emerge and require a different handling and additional concessions. This is why Israel is now occupying the primary position as the only stable and reliable ally and a strategic focal point that cannot be replaced for American influence, and Washington cannot risk weakening it by unintentionally contributing to the increase of the threats surrounding it. Hence the American decision to maintain a balance which has been in place since the arrival of Al-Assad Sr. to power at the beginning of the seventies, featuring the disregarding of his acts on the domestic arena and his direct surrounding, in exchange for keeping the Golan front calm and containing the powers (firstly the Palestinian ones then the Lebanese-Iranian ones) that are engaged in skirmishes with Israel via the Lebanese South. This is a balance to which the former Soviet Union contributed. It is certain that the only superpower does not wish to see anyone participating in the arrangement of the world alongside it, but the Americans have a dual goal: Change in the Syrian command and the departure of Bashar al-Assad and his entourage would constitute a prize offered to the rebellious opposition and the Arab sides supporting it. As to the sustainment of the structure and diverse arsenal of the Syrian army, it would constitute a counter prize to Israel which is disgruntled about the American decision preventing it from addressing a military strike to the Iranian nuclear program. This solution would also go in line with Moscow's interests, as the latter also wishes to see the sustainment of the Syrian army it armed and trained, and over whose command it enjoys great influence. This possible solution would mean the United States' implicit recognition of the fact that its ability to manage the world alone is limited, and that it needs some sort of international balance to help contain the small powers that have tried and will continue to try to fill the vacuum generated by the American failure.
