THE COST OF A FATAL MISTAKE

The bitter and bloody war in Syria goes on. The geopolitical manoeuvres of the external forces involved in it are becoming ever more active and incisive. Recent events point ever more clearly to the fact that these forces are preparing for an end to the Syrian drama, but without having a rough idea of what the future holds for a state which, according to many indications, is already going through agonies in anticipation of the triumph of another "Arab revolution".

The warning of Jamrai

The Israeli strike on a military research centre in the Jamrai district in Damascus province could be seen as a key moment of the Syrian revolution. As a result of the air raid two people were killed and five injured and the building itself was completely destroyed.

Israel claims that the target of the attack was a convoy close to the Lebanese border which could have been carrying weapons for the Lebanese radical movement "Hezbollah". However, Syrian sources are insisting on the authenticity of a report about the destruction of the research centre, pointing to a similar military action by the Israelis in 2007 when a building in which nuclear research was being carried out was destroyed. It should be borne in mind that Syria and Israel have been officially in a state of war for several decades now. Israel continues its occupation of the Golan Heights which are separated from the rest of Syrian territory by a demilitarized zone about 3km wide, which was established as part of the cease-fire agreement in 1974. However, since the civil war started in Syria, Israel has not intervened in this internal conflict. The air strike carried out by the Israeli air force on Syria was unexpected, but only to a certain degree. In fact, it occurred at a time when Israel has become absolutely confident there would be no serious consequences resulting from a violent act undertaken by them.  Why? The answer came in a speech by Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak at the international security conference in Munich.  "Bashar Assad's regime is doomed and is living out its last days," Ehud Barak said. 

So, regardless of the target which was attacked from the air, Israel chose a well-defined moment. Tel-Aviv decided that it was worth the risk: after all, no-one knows what will happen in Syria after President Assad's authority is destroyed. The dubious military target in Jamrai did not fit in at all with Israel's interests during the heady days of the ruling regime in Syria. Now that the regime is falling into obscurity the Israelis have been able to indulge in knocking out the research centre, especially bearing in mind the total uncertainty over who will eventually rule in Damascus.

Bashar Assad himself is trying to act as if his authority is not about to be destroyed. Iran, Damascus' only ally, is the one country giving him considerable help in this. During his meeting in the Syrian capital with the secretary of the Iranian Supreme National Security Council, Said Jalili, Bashar Assad said that the Israeli attack on the military research centre was carried out in order to destabilize and weaken Syria. For his part, the Tehran representative promised the Syrian leader Iranian assistance should Damascus decide to respond to the Israeli attack.

Meanwhile, it must be obvious to the Islamic Republic that the Israeli strike on the Syrian military target was a kind of signal to Tehran itself. Israel is making it clear to Iran, using the example of Syria, that it is prepared to carry out any steps to prevent countries that constitute a threat to the existence of the Jewish state possessing nuclear weapons.

Tehran, of course, is aware of what is happening, and also that there is no real perspective in placing its stakes on Bashar Assad. The fact that calls for an inter-Syrian dialogue are becoming more of a feature in the rhetoric of the Iranian leaders is linked precisely with this. In particular, at the tripartite summit in Cairo involving the presidents of Egypt, Turkey and Iran, the latter signed up to the thesis about the need to discuss "mechanisms for ending the bloodshed" and reaching "specific decisions" in this direction.  Moreover, Iran has not raised any objections to the idea expressed at the session of the Islamic Cooperation Organization to start a serious dialogue between the Syrian opposition and representatives of the Syrian government who support political change in their country.

In other words, the need for a change of power in Syria is a vital requirement of the times which, whether they like it or not, Tehran is forced to admit. The only question is in what form it will take place and which forces will eventually rise to the heights of power in Syria?  By all accounts, those external forces which are actually condoning this process are worried not so much by the make-up of the future Damascus regime as the speediest removal of Bashar Assad. This, basically, also worries the world's opponents of the Syrian revolution, and not just Iran.

When "everyone must agree"

US President Barack Obama has urged the Syrian people to overthrow Bashar Assad's regime as soon as possible and has promised to provide $155m in humanitarian aid, with a further $365m to come. "We have done a great deal to isolate Bashar Assad's regime, we have imposed sanctions which are starving him and we have recognized the national coalition of the Syrian opposition as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people. Now we are providing aid to all Syrians in need," the head of the White House said.

He is backed up by US Vice-President Joe Biden, who said that Bashar Assad must quit his post and "everyone must agree with this". During the Munich conference Biden met with the head of the National Coalition of Opposition and Revolutionary Forces of Syria (NCORF), Sheikh Akhmed Mouaz al-Khatib, and urged him to protect unity in the ranks of the opposition, "isolate extremist elements" and forge contacts with the broad sections of the country's population, including the communities of Alawites, Christians and Kurds. But what was particularly significant was that for the purpose of the speediest overthrow of the Syrian regime Biden welcomed recent statements by al-Khatib in which he expressed readiness to enter into talks with some representatives of the authorities. In other words, for the purpose of overthrowing a specific regime - the implementation of a process which has dragged out unnecessarily despite the original calculations of international sponsors of the Syrian opposition - the latter is being instructed to reach an agreement with certain forces within the regime itself.

NCORF has expressed its readiness to hold talks with these forces on the country's political future, but only on condition that President Assad stands down. Syrian Vice-President Farouq al-Sharaa, a politician who, in the opinion of western circles, could become a broker between Assad and the opposition, is being named as a possible partner in a dialogue. It was not by chance that at the start of the widespread demonstrations against the Syrian government, represented in the main by Alawites, the opposition and the Arab League suggested to Assad that he transfer his presidential powers to al-Sharaa as an influential representative of the Sunnis.

So another important means of achieving the speediest downfall of the Assad regime - the possible detachment from him of one of the key figures in the shape of the vice-president - has been set in motion. And although al-Sharaa himself gives no reason to doubt his devotion to Assad, the Syrian opposition's statements about a readiness for a dialogue with him are already a factor of strong pressure on official Damascus. The significance of his pressure increases bearing in mind the inevitable development of events. This is also understood by those powers, particularly Russia, who are resisting to the end the use of force to overthrow the Syrian regime.

Special features of the "new position"

New features have emerged of late in Russia's stance on the Syrian question. For example, Russian Prime Minister Dmitriy Medvedev, in an interview for the American CNN TV channel, said that Syrian President Bashar Assad had made a fatal mistake in not engaging the moderate opposition in political reforms. He also pointed out that the Syrian regime's chances of survival are dwindling and that the Syrian people must decide its fate. Furthermore, Medvedev told the German newspaper Handelsblatt that Russia was prepared for contacts with all parties in the Syrian conflict, although it continues to oppose a military solution to it.

The Syrian opposition interpreted these statements as testimony to Russia's "new position". The joint command of the rebel Free Syrian Army expressed the hope that the change in Russia's approach would lead to the UN Security Council adopting a decision on overthrowing the Syrian regime by force and would enable the Syrian people to "get rid of Bashar Assad by any means the Syrian people wish to use".

The meeting between Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and NCORF leader Ahmed Mouaz al-Khatib in the corridors of the Munich forum on security also gives Assad's opponents grounds for optimism regarding the change in Russia's position. It is significant that earlier the Syrian opposition leader refused to have talks with Moscow, alluding to its support for official Damascus. At the end of last year al-Khatib also turned down an official invitation from the Russian foreign ministry to visit Moscow. And now, after meeting Lavrov in Munich, al-Khatib noted with satisfaction that he had received an invitation from the Russian foreign minister to visit the Russian capital. However, should Dmitriy Medvedev's statement about the dwindling chances of the Syrian regime of surviving and Russia's readiness "for contacts with everyone" be interpreted as a shift in Moscow's official position in relation to a settlement to the Syrian conflict? More likely, what we are talking about here is a forced statement by the Russian prime minister of the fact of a substantial weakening of Assad's positions, rather than a fundamental change in Moscow's position. The fact that the Syrian opposition is deliberately overstating the suppositions about Russia's "new position" is another matter, because it realizes that a decisive strike against the regime, even if is falling apart at the seams, is impossible not only without large-scale external interference by all those world forces which have a direct interest in overthrowing Assad, but also recognition by those unhappy with this scenario of the fact that the incumbent Syrian leader has no place in his country's future.