The map of the regional conflict does not need clarification or additional lines to define the borders and the positions. The alignment is at its fiercest and has almost reached the end of the track or the brink of the abyss, as though there was no longer any room for compromises or deals. As for the Arab Spring, it is one of the arenas of confrontation that are open each and every day to surprises and repercussions which will affect the drafting of the outline of the regional and international order that is in formation. The conflict is at its fiercest in the face of the “rejectionist alliance,” from Beirut to Damascus, going through Baghdad, Tehran and Kabul. It is part of what is happening between the major players on the farthest arenas, from the extreme East to Africa, going through Central Asia. At this point, it would not be an exaggeration for the supporters of the Iranian and Syrian regimes – along with their allies in Lebanon and Iraq – to say there was a “conspiracy” or foreign projects to topple this alliance via domestic and external battles by use of all available weapons. Nonetheless, it would be an exaggeration or an oversimplification to say that the popular action in Syria among other Arab countries is one of the “tools” serving these projects. There is no arguing about the fact that this internal action is based on the wish to restore dignity, freedom, and the rule of the law, and end tyranny and corruption. Consequently, there is no dispute about the use of that action by the big fighters on the regional and international levels, as a pressure tool in the mounting confrontation between them. The acuteness of the alignment has reached the point of explosion. Indeed, Damascus' allies and rivals, from Russia to China, the United States, Europe and Turkey, are warning against the Syrian crisis' slide toward civil war, while the Arab League is sending one warning after the other to Damascus, setting deadlines that are growing tighter and threatening with sanctions, blockades and isolation. As for Iran's rivals, they are the same, from Israel to the United States and most of the Arabs. All of them are warning that “the war option is on the table” if the Islamic Republic does not succumb to the obligations, requirements and regulations of the International Atomic Energy Agency. In parallel, Tehran is besieged by the action at the United Nations against the backdrop of Washington's exposure of a plan to assassinate the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's ambassador in the American capital, but also against the backdrop of the exposure by Qatar and Bahrain of a cell which it was supporting to carry out explosions and assassinations in Manama, among other locations. At this level, there is no need to explain what is happening in Beirut and Baghdad, seeing how it echoes this heated conflict. These two capitals constitute parallel arenas for the confrontation, perhaps to defuse the tensions, feel the pulse – if necessary – and reveal the extent of the readiness to go far in the game of the “brink of the abyss.” Hence, what Lebanon might face due to the ongoing controversy affecting the issue of the funding of the tribunal and the launching of its work should not be taken lightly, along with the pressures to which Hezbollah and the government it is sponsoring or leading could be subsequently subjected. The same goes to the repercussions of this government's non-insightful stand alongside the regime in Damascus. In the meantime, the Iraqis' concern toward the imminent and full withdrawal of the American forces from their country cannot be concealed, at a time when the Sunni provinces in the West and the center are pushing toward their transformation into independent regions that are closer to entities ready to secede should the circumstances and the developments require them to do so. On the other hand, the government – which is unable to elude the provision of support to Damascus – is proceeding with the campaign to pursue those whom it dubs the remnants of the Baath, fearful of seeing the revival of the ghost of “civil war” that followed the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime a few years ago, but also of seeing the latter provinces communicate with a new regime that sympathizes with them on the denominational level and might succeed to Al-Assad's regime. These concerns toward the fate of the western and center provinces are also affecting the United States in the post-withdrawal phase. Indeed, the US is afraid that Tehran's influence might extend from Baghdad to these provinces. Hence its pressures on Damascus and the escalation of its position toward President Al-Assad's regime, as it wishes to guarantee the containment of the Iranian influence within the Iraqi border. Moreover, through the departure of the regime, it wishes to impose a cordon around the Land of the Two Rivers, in order to prevent the Republic from reaching Iraq's neighbors in the south and the west, from Jordan to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. For their part, the oppositionists of President Al-Assad's regime believe that the West and the Arabs were very late in “participating in the confrontation,” considering that a long time has gone by since the eruption of the Syrian crisis and that the regime was given more than one opportunity and deadline and offered initiatives and enticements by Qatar, the Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and France among others with the recent recognition of Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem. Moreover, pointless attempts were deployed to distance Damascus from Tehran, get it to discontinue the security option and head toward negotiations and dialogue with the opposition parties, while a lot was said to justify the non-flexibility of the regime's leaders or its inability to introduce reforms. But away from the domestic reasons behind the action in Syria – knowing they are the basis – the players in the region relied on this action and rendered it one of the weapons of the wider confrontation in the conflict over the outline of the regional and international orders. This is why it is currently easy for Syria's allies to uphold the tale of the “conspiracy” targeting the country, by using as proof what was asked from Damascus earlier – i.e. prior to the Arab Spring – to no avail, i.e. the necessity for it to take a step back at the level of its relations with Iran, to balance its stand and reposition itself in the region. This does not confirm the veracity of the tales related to the “conspiracy,” since what is happening in Syria is no different than what happened in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Libya among other places in the Arab world. At this level, the attempts to limit and attribute the Arab Spring to hands wishing to re-divide the region or to underlying colonial projects and wishes among other similar claims, feature injustice against the simple and ordinary people who took and are still taking to the streets to demand dignity, freedom and justice, but also a denial which will not substitute the recognition of the real problem. It is natural for the Arab action to open everyone's appetite, whether those close to the intervention or those distant from it, just as it was not odd for the United States, Europe, Russia, China, Iran, Turkey and the Arab League member states to rush to protect or enhance their interests. Moreover, it was not surprising to see these states among other regional powers offer all types of support to President Al-Assad's regime, but also to other sides in the opposition. It is a wager on the future of the situation in the entire region and a race to strengthen the interests and secure more acquisitions. Hence, should there be talk about a “conspiracy” on one side and not on the other? The open confrontation with Iran, Syria and their allies, is one of many existing fronts. In the Far East, the conflict is ablaze between China and the United States, while President Barack Obama's meeting with Prime Minister Wen Jiabao in the Indonesian island of Bali, fell in the context of the efforts to reach an agreement over many disputed files between the two sides. Indeed, Beijing is rejecting any American interference at the level of its border disputes with the states overlooking the South China Sea, and is disgruntled about the United States' enhancement of its military presence in the northern part of Australia, its support of Taiwan, and its attempts to secure a trade agreement between the countries in the Pacific Ocean region, while excluding China, which is accused of imposing its hegemony over the area. As for the weapons of the confrontation between Beijing and Washington, they are countless. The experts of the American Senate's economic and security committee assured in their yearly report to Congress a few days ago, that China was undermining the international community's efforts aiming at preventing Iran and North Korea from proceeding with their nuclear programs, but also was one of the “key providers” of refined oil products and weapons – including intercontinental ballistic missiles - to the Islamic Republic. Moreover, the American officials accuse it of not properly reassessing its currency and of allowing the theft of American intellectual property. Months ago, Hillary Clinton had warned the African Continent from Lusaka against “neocolonialism,” in light of China's expansion of its trade and industry arenas. In the end, Washington realizes that its alliances with the states of the region might not prevent the Chinese dragon from expanding its influence in its regional space and backyard, from the China Sea area to the Indian Ocean. And if some settlement or understanding is to be reached between the two giants, the Middle East – which occupies a prominent position in the American strategy – remains less important and vital in Beijing's economic and military calculations than East Asia. On the Russian front, the stay of the Putin-Medvedev duo in the Kremlin means the continuation of the tense dialogue between Moscow and Washington in regard to a series of policies, namely: the expansion of NATO's membership which is reaching Russia's threshold, the missile shield in Europe and Turkey and the Georgia problem whose fire is still burning beneath the ashes of Abkhazia and Ossetia. And while Russia feels that Washington needs it in the face of the Iranian nuclear file and on the Afghan level and that it is benefiting from its rival's troubles in Iraq and Afghanistan – not to mention its deep economic crisis – Russia itself is not distant from the economic crisis and needs its European partners. It is aware of the fact that eventually, the weakness of the American giant does not serve its interests, considering that the rising China constitutes a big challenge for it in the Far East, Central Asia and Africa. In the context of this open front in the Arab world, Obama's administration clearly conveyed its support of the Arab Spring, unlike Russia and China which expressed fears of seeing the regimes in the region turning toward the Western democratic model, at a time when these two countries are subjected day in and day out to accusations of violating human rights. They thus fear the transfer of the “Spring infection,” but also the rise of the Islamic movements in the Middle East in parallel to the problems they are facing with the Islamic minority on their arenas and borders. While those concerned by the Syrian action expressed a wish to show patience at the beginning – in the hope that the initiatives, the calls and maybe the negotiations might result in a deal or a settlement – they are now finding themselves in the face of closed doors. Hence the Arab, Turkish and Western move to topple the regime in Damascus and the launching of the massive campaign against Iran. If this move manages to break the Syrian “rejectionist” link without any secondary earthquakes, the balance will tilt in favor of the Arab spring and the “army” of supporters and backers, and there would be no need for a wide-scale military confrontation. Unless, of course, the Syrian earthquake were to lead to a war that is not wanted by those engaged in the fight.
