IS DAMASCUS FACING A "LIBYAN SCENARIO"?

Anti-government demonstrations in Syria, demanding political reforms and the resignation of President Bashar al-Assad, have been going on for six months. The authorities promised reform to the public, but chose a hard line from the outset including special operations involving the military. The Syrian government lifted the state of emergency that had been in force for 50 years, but at the same time banned demonstrations. The opposition did not retreat, neither did al-Assad. As a result, in early September, it was reported once again that government troops had entered the cities of Hama and Homs.

Reports give varying numbers for the victims of the crackdown, but they are clearly in the hundreds. Reuters quoted the opposition as saying that some 3,000 civilians had been killed since the beginning of the uprising. According to the UN, the death toll is 2,600. On 31 August, the human rights organization Amnesty International published a report (the investigation was conducted jointly with the victims' families and independent experts) about the death and torture of prisoners in Syria, according to which at least 88 people have been killed in prison since March 2011. The bodies of the victims, who had been arrested for taking part or on suspicion of taking part in the protests, bore traces of beatings and lashes, cigarette and electric burns, and many had broken bones. The worst thing is that the dead include several children, the youngest of whom was 13 years old.

The Syrian authorities themselves say that 1,400 have been killed: "Seven hundred on the side of the army and police and 700 on the other side." Insurgents are often referred to as "bandits and terrorists".

One way or another, today everyone is more concerned about what happens next. Will there be a repeat of the Tunisian, Egyptian or maybe even Libyan scenario in Syria? At first glance, the current situation in Syria is reminiscent of what happened in Libya. However, it's not that simple.

Syria is a key country in the Arab world, stability in which affects the overall situation in the Middle East, especially the Arab-Israeli conflict. Rumour has it that Syria, which still has not lost hope of retaking the Golan Heights, may start a war with Israel to divert attention from itself. It is also necessary to note the specific relations between Syria and Lebanon and the influence of Damascus on Hamas and Hezbollah.

In addition, many processes in the Middle East, as though to order, are now very close to "boiling point". Relations between Turkey and Israel are rapidly deteriorating, while anti-Israel sentiment has intensified in Egypt. Turkey openly condemns Damascus. Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas is preparing to ask the UN to recognize an independent Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. Protests may erupt in Yemen again. There is a complex political situation in Jordan. Under these conditions, the deteriorating situation in Syria has unpredictable consequences.

From this point of view, the same Israel is not interested in the fall of Bashar al-Assad's regime. After all, the Israeli-Syrian border has been more or less peaceful for many years.

If protests increase and al-Assad falls, there is a risk of Islamists coming to power in Syria. A unique situation has come about in this country: there are too many forces there - political and religious - and their truce is shaky. And in many respects, it is tied to al-Assad.

A country where most people are Sunnis is ruled by Alawites (Shiites), who represent only 10 per cent of the population. The Alawites who previously worked as servants and cleaners, have been in power since World War Two, when they went to officers' schools en masse (as soon as the question arose of the need to create a professional army in Syria). Later, it gave them an opportunity to take power into their own hands under the Ba'ath Party, and the most enterprising of them was General Hafez al-Assad, whose son, Bashar, is now in power. Thirty years ago, Hafez al-Assad crushed a Sunni rebellion in Hama. According to various estimates, about 20,000 people were killed at the time. Thus, if the al-Assad regime falls, there may be a Sunni-Alawite massacre and real civil wars, and this is highly disadvantageous to the US and Europe, which are still stuck in Iraq, Afghanistan and now Libya. Currently, the Arab-Israeli conflict is on the brink, not to mention the fact that nobody knows what to do with Iran.

It will also be very difficult for Western countries to get approval at home for another military campaign in the Middle East. Moreover, intervention in Syrian affairs could cause a storm of protest in neighbouring countries, and now that the political future of an important Arab country like Egypt is still in question, it is the last thing the West needs. The "Libyan scenario" will also be opposed by be the Arab League, and most likely Russia and China, members of the Security Council with veto power.

But on the other hand, nobody really knows what Western countries have in mind in the Middle East game. Sometimes it happens that in order to achieve long-term results, it is necessary to sacrifice very valuable pieces in the middle of the game.

We should not forget about links between Syria and Iran. A disruption in the Iran-Syria chain (plus Hamas and Hezbollah) may significantly weaken the position of Tehran, up to the breath of the "Arab Spring" in the Islamic Republic itself. Indeed, it is not without reason that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad publicly condemned the actions of the Syrian authorities, saying in an interview with the Portuguese TV channel Radiotelevisao Portuguesa that they should stop suppressing anti-government protests and negotiate with the opposition. According to the Iranian leader, "a military solution is never the right solution and all problems should be resolved through dialogue".

Middle Eastern media say that al-Assad likely knew about the impending criticism from Ahmadinejad and was ready for it. According to some reports, the president of Syria secretly visited Tehran, where he met with the spiritual leader of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and Ahmadinejad.

At the same time, comparing what is happening in Syria with what happened in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia would be an obvious mistake. Who can draw a common line under these events? Yes, they have a very vague name "Arab Spring", but so far no politician or political scientist has explained clearly what this "spring", which has already segued into autumn, means. Also, no one can really say what the opposition in Egypt and particularly in Libya and Syria is. Who are these people and what are their political, economic and social programmes? How are they, for example, going to seek unity in such an ethnically and religiously disparate country as Syria? Who are their leaders and what is their past?

No one expected the fall of Muammar Gaddafi or Hosni Mubarak. The figure of Bashar al-Assad, compared with them, does not seem so strong. However, we cannot say that al-Assad will share their fate. If he is overthrown, he will be overthrown by a unique scenario. It will be his own distinctive final fling in "the great Middle East game", even though it follows the same rules.

It is a "game" where everyone is striving to get the most benefit. For example, even Saudi Arabia, which is interested in the weakening of the union between Damascus and Tehran, has strongly condemned what is happening in Syria.

Another issue is Russia, which has made strange attempts to resolve the situation in Syria. Moscow has its own interests in this country, and they are much broader than just access to the Mediterranean Sea. The Kremlin finds it hard to get rid of the image of Syria as an ally, which it was during the Cold War. Russia will lose a lot with the departure of al-Assad, which will be particularly damaging against the background of recent losses in Libya.

Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev said in an interview with Euronews that Moscow was generally averse to increased pressure on the regime in Syria, because "those who chant anti-government slogans are very different people" and "some of them, frankly, are extremists, and some can even be called terrorists". Medvedev made it clear that Russia is ready to support a UN Security Council resolution on Syria if it is addressed to both sides and does not entail the automatic application of sanctions.

"We are ready to support a variety of approaches, but they should not be based on one-sided condemnation of the acts of the government and President al-Assad. They must send a tough message to all conflicting sides: you need to sit down at the table, negotiate and end the bloodshed," Medvedev said.

 In response, the US stated that they did not share Russia's approach and intended to get the UN Security Council to adopt as tough a resolution as possible on Syria. We seem to have heard this dialogue somewhere before...