Everyone became preoccupied with the announcement made by head of the Syrian opposition Coalition Moaz al-Khatib, except for the other party concerned by dialogue, i.e. the regime in Damascus. And regardless of the motives, conditions, justifications and goals behind the proclamation of the willingness to engage in dialogue, Al-Khatib and the Syrian regime are each talking about a different thing, having nothing to do with the other. Indeed, the regime has launched the dialogue it desired a long time ago, and assigned the prime minister to sponsor it. The regime is conducting this dialogue with itself and with its followers, not to find a solution for the country, but to proceed with the deterrence of the terrorists, i.e. all the Syrian opposition factions, parties and groups. In addition, it welcomes dialogue with all those whose hands were not drenched in blood, who did not help the terrorists and who recognize the regime as being the only authority. In other words, it excluded in advance all those showing any reservations over its perception of the nature of the crisis and the ways to handle it, and all those who are not directly linked to its apparatuses and the decision-makers in it. The regime promoted this kind of dialogue, and it seemed for a while that Russia and China supported that step, calling on the opposition to participate in it at the time. But today, they are ashamed of this call - whose supporters are limited to Tehran and its followers - after dialogue was exposed as a cover for the security solution, and turned out to feature stalling and attempts to waste time. Now, the only thing that could be accepted by the regime is for Al-Khatib – and whoever is in his position – to announce his wish to join the official dialogue, engage in self-criticism following a period of delusion, and recognize that the regime and its policy are the only reference for dialogue. What is certain is that neither Al-Khatib nor anyone else in the Syrian opposition can accept such dialogue, which is one of the tools of the security solution. But there seems to be a reading that can be drawn from a series of statements, saying that the military solution is unavailable to either one of the sides of the equation and that the international position will not witness any change allowing the altering of the balance of powers on the ground. Consequently, it would be better to head towards a political solution through negotiations. At this level, it is not a coincidence that Al-Khatib named Vice President Farouk al-Sharaa an interlocutor on behalf of the regime, considering that all the ideas circulated since Kofi Annan's mission and reiterated in the Geneva Declaration and in the context of Lakhdar Brahimi's proposals, stressed the necessity of maintaining the unity of the Syrian state, of which one of the most prominent figures is the vice president who was never known to be involved in the security solution. These ideas were even echoed by Al-Sharaa himself, as he conducted an interview a while ago, talking about the impossibility of seeing a military solution and the necessity of resorting to negotiations. Hence, Al-Khatib and Al-Sharaa converged over the adoption of another type of dialogue, different from the one the regime is conducting with itself. But as announced by the regime, Al-Sharaa expressed a rejected personal opinion, and was excluded from the governmental dialogue. For their part, the Syrian opposition movements expressed their rejection of Al-Khatib's declaration, considering his call to be a personal initiative. In both cases, the invitation to engage in dialogue seems to be issued by people with no capacity or ability, and more importantly with no tools to impose it, despite the intentions which may lie behind it. And while the regime is proceeding with the dialogue it tailored to its size, a serious and useful dialogue – that would lead to the actual settlement of the Syrian crisis in a way taking into account not only the popular demands, but also the accountability of those who destroyed Syria, displaced its people and killed tens of thousands among them – is still very distant.
