The Middle East inhabitants follow the images. They listen to the declarations, and go far in their assumptions and interpretations. They stop at the time and place, and the common denominators and differences between the sides of a single image and the prominent image. They also stop at the image's relation with the present and the past; its potential relation with the present and the future; the image's ability to promote impressions and messages; its ability to launch a communications dynamics that serves the objectives mentioned in the declarations. The Middle East inhabitants can talk today about three main images that are related to peace, war, and stability. My attention was caught by the image of the summit that gathered yesterday Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Syrian President Bashar el-Assad, and Qatari Prince Hamad bin Khalifa al Thani. The summit was held during an extremely tense moment in the region. The great countries are moving towards making an agreement on new international sanctions against Iran. Talk about missiles and arsenals has escalated in the past weeks. Israeli accusations against Syria have increased fears. The US participation in the accusations has given the impression that pressures on Damascus might be increased. Turkey does not want to hear about war in the region. It is betting on an exit from the current crisis between Iran and the West. It is betting on going back to sponsor indirect negotiations between Syria and Israel if the Hebrew state's government goes back to the rationale of seeking peace. Turkey considers negotiations as the sole option. It considers that the region is in dire need of peace, stability and prosperity. It considers that war, elimination, and oppression belong to a terminology that is no longer valid. Turkey has relations with all the region's inhabitants, and so does Qatar. Recently, the Turkish dose increased in diplomacy and the desire for bickering and settling accounts has diminished. Qatar has the ability to speak to everyone, i.e. Israel, Hezbollah, and Hamas. The Istanbul summit image reminded me of a different summit held in Damascus last February, with President el-Assad, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Hezbollah General Secretary in Lebanon Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. Obviously, the summit was held in a language of immovability, opposition, resistance culture, and readiness to face any Israeli aggression. Perhaps this image is behind the new round of pressures on Syria under the pretext of accusing it of delivering Scud missiles to Hezbollah. The comparison between the two images leads us to ask: what is the image that best represents the reality of the situation in the region? The Damascus image gives the impression of confrontation, conflict, and deterrence. The Istanbul image gives the impression of a desire in opening a window that prevents any slide towards confrontation. The state of no peace and no war is not viable for long. Keeping the specter of war at bay is impossible without seeking peace. The option of waiting means getting ready to welcome the explosion. What is common between the two images is the presence of Bashar el-Assad. The Syrian President took difficult decisions during the stormy past decade. His decision to build a strategic relation with Turkey has borne its fruits. He turned Damascus into a mandatory passage for avoiding war and searching for peace, stability, and prosperity. If the image of the Istanbul summit does not get the attention it deserves, then the image of the Damascus summit will prevail. The third image concerns the future of Arabs and the region. It is that of el-Assad welcoming King Abdullah bin Abdel Aziz in Damascus after the Syrian President's visit to Saudi Arabia. After the Damascus summit, the Saudi interpretations of the region's events became retrieved their place in the calculations of the decision-maker in Damascus. The third image is certainly closer to the language of the Istanbul image. The third image's effect will be completed when we witness an Egyptian-Syrian summit that will also be closer to the language of the Istanbul image. Barack Obama's administration should read into the three images. Curbing Benjamin Netanyahu's aggressiveness is necessary for encouraging Syria to play an active role in the regional stability from Iraq to Lebanon, including the Palestinian dossier. Russia is not far from reading into images. Its President is visiting Damascus today, and his next stop is Ankara. I do not know how Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will welcome the image of the Istanbul summit and its effective language that is distant from his terminology. Pragmatically speaking, this summit is an opportunity for his country to avoid the “huge repercussions” if Tehran responds to Ahmet Davutoglu's advice. Walking in the opposite direction means awakening the volcano, and the “huge repercussions” will not be limited to Lebanon alone.
