The anger of the Iranian ‘students', who stormed the UK embassy in Tehran, started fires there and vandalized the building, resembles nothing except the anger of pro-regime Syrians, who besieged the embassies of certain gulf states. That took place following the Arab League's decision to punish this regime for ignoring its warnings and its initiative to dispatch a mission of observers to Syria. Some believe that Tehran's renunciation of the angry mobs is also similar to Damascus's renunciation of the attacks against the embassies of Gulf States - including Qatar, which is heading the Arab ministerial committee tasked with handling Syria's systematic repression campaign. Similarly, there are murmurs that tensions within the Syrian leadership tension have started to resemble those among the troubled wings of the highest echelons in Iran's leadership. It is worthy of note to say here that the Islamic character of the Iranian leadership has never managed to justify the nature of its alliance with the regime in Damascus, which boasts of its “secularism.” This is while the Syrian regime cannot justify its “strategic” alliance with these Iranian wings either, since some of the even claim to fund the Muslim Brotherhood in the context of the region's “spring,” at a time when the Brotherhood is the archenemy of the Syrian Baath Party. In both cases, the ideology engages in hostility toward the usurping Zionist entity, only to reinforce its claims about it being threatened. This is in parallel with the ongoing Syrian killing machine inside the country, aimed at thwarting the “conspiracy of the terrorist Islamists”, and the Iranian nuclear bomb aimed at deterring the “demonic Western conspiracy” against the Islamic Republic. Syria is entering the stage of an Arab-international siege, while Iran is growing closer to the isolation option, even provoking a confrontation with Britain as though seeking to push the West toward severing all forms of dialogue, in response to intensified American-European sanctions. While Damascus has already wiped Europe off its map – as Tehran has done to Israel – the question now is about Iraq's role as an “Iranian playground”, in the sense of breathing air into the lungs of the Syrian regime, following the American pullout from Mesopotamia The question also revolves around the purpose of the sudden Iranian “anger,” if not to build a wall of isolation to cover the last stage of the production of an atomic bomb. The cost in this case is justified for the extremist conservative wings, in tandem with an assumption that storming the British embassy will disperse the West's efforts in its political-economic campaign to sever all the arteries of the Syrian regime. The Americans are celebrating a new page with Iraq; the Iranians are celebrating a new phase in their “playground” and the Turks, who have recanted the exclusion of the possibility of (Western) military intervention in Syria, are preparing for all possible scenarios, except that of a direct clash with the Iranian army. That same exclusion can only lead to seeing a Turkish intervention under NATO's air cover in its area of operations, to protect the buffer zone in Syria, on the border with Erdogan's republic. This is happening after the latter relinquished his mission as the sponsor of a regional initiative, before the Arabization of the solution. If the killing machine manages to deter an Arab solution, then Arab League Secretary General Nabil al-Arabi will not find many sharing his optimism that the solution will only happen under the banner of the Arab League. When all the statements of Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem – who accused the League of squeezing Damascus into a corner – are refuted, how can there be hope in more opportunities given after the last one? And when French warnings start emerging of a catastrophe in Syria, can the humanitarian corridors remain mere demands to disclaim what the West perceives as being “massacres” being committed under the pretext of the pursuit of “armed gangs?” From the “playground” and the attempts to fill the vacuum, to the confrontation in the area from the Tigris to the Orontes, Tehran is dreaming of the “bomb's crescent” and Damascus of its wager on its solitary ally. Only Ankara is not hesitating to announce divorce with the era of illusions, and is preparing for a costly solution on the “sectarian frontlines.” True, a war did once unify it with Tehran against the project for a Kurdish state, but what is also true is that Turkey, whether during the era of the Justice and Development Party's Islamists or without them, cannot coexist with an Iranian “empire”. Such an empire would have its gates in Tehran and Qom, and its windows in Basra, on the rivers of the Tigris and the Oreontes, and on the shores of Latakia and Beirut. The Arabs in the meantime can only await the impossible, i.e. for the Syrian command to halt the mobile military invasions of the cities and villages of the revolution. And while the facts make their wager likely to resemble that of the West and America - throughout three years - over the severance of the Syrian-Iranian alliance, what is being leaked about signs pointing to the unraveling of the higher command in Damascus is completely identical to old and renewed illusions regarding the imminent detonation of the conflict between wings in Tehran. Just like the negotiations between the West and Iran to settle the nuclear program crisis ended without any results, it does not seem that Damascus has any intention of dealing with the Arab League's initiative and sanctions. From the Tigris to the Orontes, a new chapter of the conflict over the region and over Syria unfolds with much Arab blood.
