The Syrian coast bears a symbolic significance for the country's collective consciousness. Such symbolism became particularly entrenched under the rule of former President Hafez Al-Assad, and even more deeply rooted under that of his son and heir President Bashar Al-Assad. It is an expression of sectarian defeat in Syria, between a minority that seized power over four decades ago and whose members most densely inhabit the coastline and its mountains, and an overwhelming majority present in most parts of the country. Along with power, the coast witnessed investments and growth that set it apart from the rest of Syria, becoming to a certain extent the image sought for itself by the minority in power, after having experienced, in the past, a great deal of neglect, marginalization, persecution and exploitation. As a matter of fact, one of the aspects of the systematic campaign against Takfiri groups shows that it is a mere defense of the successful image of the minority on the coast, by virtue of its presence in power, against the enemies of progress and intermixing and their current symbolic representative, Jabhat Al-Nusra. The sectarian massacres witnessed by the countryside of Banias, on a par with the ethnic cleansing that took place in the Balkans, expresses such symbolism, as well as the sought-after outcome for the coast, at the end of the deadly confrontation which Syria is currently witnessing. The massacres in Al-Baida have come after media “appearances" from Lebanon, by each of the two symbolic figures of the sectarian equation in Syria. These “appearances" have come from Lebanon, because the opportunity for the Syrian coast to remain a safe haven is linked to securing its southern base, which is connected to Lebanon through the countryside of Homs, where Lebanese fighters are engaging in the confrontation in Syria. Thus, an “appearance" was made, on the eve of the massacres, by both Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah and Sheikh Ahmad Al-Assir, each of whom symbolizes the nature of the Syrian line of division. There are vast differences between the two figures, their financial capabilities, their capacity for armed mobilization, their connections, and their ability to influence the course of events, knowing that Hassan Nasrallah represents an essential part of Iran's strategy in the region, while Assir can barely gather a few young men in Saida. Yet in spite of all of this, the stances taken by those two figures in their recent “appearances" reflect the sectarian apprehension represented by the Syrian coast, its southern region and its connection to Lebanon, in such a manner as to make of this coast's image a sectarian symbol that transcends the Syrian border and the nature of the regime in Damascus. US President Barack Obama's administration is taking its time “investigating" whether the Syrian regime has resorted to the “systematic use" of chemical weapons, so that it may subsequently decide how to shift the red lines it seeks for the conflict, without pausing much to consider the number of victims falling by cannon, bullet and knife, and whether their number would be equivalent to or surpass that, which could result from a chemical attack. US Secretary of State John Kerry saw in these massacres only a source of “disgust", which has not once been known to have protected a people subjected to genocide in a particular area. Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, for his part, sees only “strategic interests" behind what is taking place in Syria, without pausing to consider the significance of these “interests" in the regime and its “Popular Committees" committing massacres against the coast's Sunni inhabitants, and “ethnic cleansing" in the region. Or does Russia's strategic interest, as represented by its naval base in Tartus, in turn require putting an end to the presence of the Syrian opposition on the coast and in its south, with all that this entails in terms of “ethnical cleansing"? Enthusiasm to ensure the “protection" of the Syrian coast, in the symbolic form that it is taking and in the nature of struggling forces, as well as through continued massacres targeting members of the country's majority, signifies working systematically to put an end to any political solution, because it would entail division on a confessional basis. Is this then in the “strategic interest" of the regime and its allies, especially Russia and Iran, with the latter being engaged in the fighting through Hezbollah, at least in the southern part of the coast? The battle of the Syrian coast signifies the end of the political solution.
