Consenting to foreign intervention and narrow representation at home are the two accusations readily made against the Syrian National Council by the supporters of the regime in Damascus, and by also some elements in the opposition. The stance espoused by the latter can be understood and justified by bearing in mind their need to maintain a thread, no matter how thin, with a regime that is hypersensitive to anything that may hint at foreign intervention in support of the protesters. Some elements in the opposition within Syria are familiar with the red lines and the minefields over which and between which they have to maneuver, and for this reason, realism requires leaving those who are directly facing the oppression machine, with bare faces and at close range, to decide the best approach in managing popular action. With regard to the mouthpieces of the regime, their argument seems untenable. Since the eruption of the Syrian uprising, they have been repeating the same idea, albeit with different wording: They purport that the opposition abroad is clueless as to what is taking place at home, and that both the opposition in exile and the domestic opposition are lackeys of the West and Israel, with their end goal being the overthrow of the regime of resistance and defiance, on behalf of the enemy's interests. The absurdity of this claim lies in the fact that many influential forces inside Syria have joined the Council, as evident from the fact that they managed to mobilize a number of rallies in support of the Council only a few hours after its establishment was announced in Istanbul. This is not to mention that the mouthpieces of the regime have refused to acknowledge the broad representation that the opposition enjoys, rendering resorting to the ballot boxes an urgent matter in order to put an end to the drivel that the supporters invoke, when they claim that the president has the overwhelming majority of the Syrians on his side. The issue of foreign intervention is no less important. Undoubtedly, the regime has made achievements in terms of foreclosing any international resolution that explicitly condemns or imposes tough sanctions on the regime. This was enabled by the absence of an Arab cover and also owing to the Russian and Chinese role in covering-up the crimes of the regime. With this in mind, the National Council has stated that the issue of foreign intervention is still under discussion, provided that no violation of Syrian sovereignty takes place, or that foreign intervention is done in agreement with the Council. The constraints of sovereignty and agreement with the Council, despite the apparent contradiction between them when speaking of foreign intervention, must be put in the context of keeping all options open in the face of a regime that had no qualms in restricting the means of its ‘dialogue' with the opposition, to armed force and a security crackdown. Amid an uneven balance of power on the ground and the revolution's insistence on its peaceful nature, it seems understandable that some ways to deter the regime are being sought, to preclude the latter from continuing its bloodshed with the aim of intimidating dissidents. The issue here is not patriotism or collaboration with foreign actors. Rather, the issue is the regime's absolute responsibility for closing the door on any political process that can lay the foundations for peaceful and democratic change in the country. This mentality did not come into being with the words of the officer Atef Najib to the dignitaries of Daraam, who had come demanding the release of their kin in the first days of the revolution. Rather, it dates back to many years ago, when President Hafiz al-Assad resolved that imprisonment and death shall be the fate of his former comrades in the army and the Baath Party who opposed his rise to power. All this, in addition to a flare up of inflation and economic hardship, and severe isolation that has left the Syrian regime with no friends save for its allies in Lebanon and some elements in the Iraqi government as well as Iran, puts the National Council in a position whereby it has the power to take initiatives both at home and abroad, and to mitigate the losses the regime seems determined to inflict upon Syria before its collapse.
