Ever since the protest movement erupted in Syria, the opposition abroad has been searching for its legitimacy in representing the protesters, and trying to obtain recognition as “the sole representative” of the Syrian people. These efforts have been confronted to many obstacles, most importantly that of the opposition being divided between a domestic one and one abroad, as well as the disputes within the opposition abroad between those who support and those who reject foreign military intervention, in addition to the fact that the domestic opposition rejects such intervention in any form, except for those who are confronting the regime's war machine with weapons and who invite any “assistance” wherever it may come from, justifying this as self-defense and defense of “the people”, and paying no heed to the price asked by those who stretch out their hand to help them. Today, after the opposition abroad got what it wanted and managed to agree, it has begun to make contacts in order to secure recognition for the Syrian National Council (SNC) it has formed in Istanbul as the “sole representative” of the Syrian people, made optimistic by Sarkozy's enthusiasm and foolhardiness, by the hatred of the White House and of the Clintons for Damascus, and by Erdoğan's eagerness and his rush to consecrate himself as the leader of the Middle East, and as NATO's beachhead in the region. The Syrian opposition abroad has overcome “the most difficult phase”, as the spokesman for the SNC Burhan Ghalioun said, and has started the easy phase, i.e. that of drawing in international and Arab recognitions (read: offers) – recognitions which are “guaranteed”, as several members of the SNC have asserted. Indeed, Washington, Paris, Ankara and other capitals have taken a stance in opposition to the Syrian regime, and have exerted tremendous pressures on the leaders of the opposition abroad, providing them with many incentives to agree on dividing up shares within the SNC today, and perhaps after the “Revolution”. And when they ask about the stance taken by Russia and China, opposed to any military intervention in Syria, they return to the stances taken by these two countries on Iraq and on Libya. Moscow and Beijing had opposed issuing any Security Council resolution against Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi, then tried to join the international community (read: the United States) after it was too late. This is why they advise them to take the initiative of breaking their alliance with the regime now, “because the wheel of recognition of the SNC has begun to turn”. Such oversimplification of international politics, and lack of discernment of their reality in Iraq and in Libya, has made a member of the opposition like Haytham Manna take a stance against his friend Burhan Ghalioun, and say that “Washington is running the National Council”. In Damascus, on the other hand, the opposition has a different point of view. The domestic opposition is criticizing the National Council, with one of its members saying that Ankara and NATO are behind it. The same opposition member adds that Turkey is trying to take advantage of the collapse of the Arab order, and of NATO's zeal, to spread its influence in the whole region. He asserts that the Justice and Development Party (AKP – Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi) is playing the prevalent sectarian game, portraying itself as equivalent to the Iranian regime. This is why it is primarily wagering on the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as on the remaining parties to the SNC, among them secular intellectuals who equal tribal leaders in oversimplifying matters. Just as Iran embraced the Iraqi opposition under Saddam Hussein, providing it with all the assistance it could and exploiting its moral influence on all those party to it, Turkey is trying to embrace the Syrian opposition, so that it may be its main partner in reshaping the system of government in Syria. Yet repeating Iran's experience in Iraq with Syria is faced with many obstacles, among them the unwillingness of the domestic opposition, which is essential, to collaborate with any foreign invasion, in addition to parliamentary opposition in Turkey to such a scenario. There remains the stance of Arab countries opposed to Iranian influence in Iraq. Will they accept for Ankara and Tehran, not to mention Israel, to shape their future and the future of the whole region? Many imagined that Turkey had lost its role after the end of the Cold War, and that NATO had become a peaceful alliance. Yet Ankara is shaping a new role for itself in the region, as well as at the international level, and is preparing for this by deploying the American missile shield on its soil in the face of Russia and Iran, as well as by spreading its influence to Syria. As for NATO, it is regaining its colonialist ambitions, amidst unparalleled Arab weakness. In the name of the Syrian people, the White House has stripped Assad of legitimacy. And in the name of that people too, France, Germany, Turkey and other countries have called on him to step down. And today, the Syrian National Council (SNC) comes to demand such legitimacy, its ambition being that the United Nations will deal with it as it did with the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) and with the Libyan National Transitional Council (NTC). Let us then prepare for another civil war, after Lebanon, Iraq, Libya and Yemen, on a background of international legitimacy.
