Will we wake up one day to the news that rockets are raining down on Israel, and Israeli planes are carrying out retaliatory strikes? Or will we wake up to the news that an Israeli embassy or cultural center was the target of a bombing, for which Israel chooses to respond in South Lebanon? What if Israel chose to expand the war to settle the account with the Iranian nuclear facilities? And in such a case, where would Iran respond and will the United States be able to stay out of this war? What if we wake up to mines in the Strait of Hormuz? Or a suicide attack against a U.S. warship in Gulf waters? I am aware of the rumors in many capitals. Many purport that the West does not want to wage war and is not capable of waging war even if it wants to. It is also said that Barack Obama, who is dreaming of a second term, wants to promote himself as a president who returns troops from the wars of his predecessor, rather than a president who sends the U.S. military machines on new wars. In the same vein, Nicolas Sarkozy, who ventured into Libya, is in no rush to go on another adventure, while David Cameron and Angela Merkel are preoccupied with the Western financial crisis and its fallout in the Eurozone and its surroundings. But while this is all true, wars sometimes dictate the events through a sudden deterioration across the regions of tension. I also know what many will say in response to this, things like the fact that Iran has mastered brinkmanship, but can avoid war in the last minute, and that the current deployment pattern of the Syrian army does not allow it to go to war with Israel. In addition, many will say that Damascus realizes that the damage its missile arsenal can inflict on Israel is smaller than that the Israeli planes can inflict on the military units that are the backbone of the regime. This is while Hezbollah will not willingly go to war given the present situation in Syria, and the changes that have swept the Lebanese entity itself. I know this but I want to raise questions about war nonetheless, and the possibilities of being drawn into it or escaping to war, because of a belief that it would reshuffle all cards and that its costs, high as they may be, remain smaller than the cost of seeing the crescent of resistance crumble. I write this in light of the news of recent days. It is clear that Iran is living in increasing tension, and that its economy is suffering under the sanctions, while the worst is yet to come, as Iran is incapable of stopping the deterioration in the value of its currency. The enrichment of uranium is only exacerbating the siege on Iran, while its threats to close down the Strait of Hormuz brought on a crystal-clear reaction. This is while the assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientist, the fourth to be assassinated in two years, and the accusations against Israel of being behind the operation, is no minor issue. I also write in light of President Bashar al-Assad's speech. It is clear that the Arab monitoring mission has been proclaimed dead and has been buried, along with the wager on a solution through the Arab League. It is also clear that the regime is not interested in any solution that might give people the impression that Syria has entered a transitional phase. The regime is still wagering on a decisive victory regardless of the terrible costs, while the opposition is not interested in any solution that means the regime would survive and only undergo cosmetic changes. Meanwhile, the perishing of thousands of victims from the opposition has bolstered the arguments of those seeking internationalization of the Syrian crisis and for facing weapons with weapons. This is while the fact that it is now too late threatens to push Syria into a civil war with an undeniable regional aspect, in light of the Iraqi and Lebanese divisions regarding the Syrian predicament. We are then facing a major battle. What is taking place in Syria goes much further than the issue of the fate of the regime there. It involves the entire axis of defiance. The collapse of the Syrian regime will mean, in the event it happens, the amputation of a main part of the role that Tehran has invested many years and funds to secure. It also means that Hezbollah would once again become just a local player. Here, it is no secret that the majority of missiles fired by Hezbollah in the 2006 war were made in Syria, under Iranian funding. My reading of the features of the upcoming phase reminds me of what I heard several months ago. My converser said, “Saving the regime in Syria is worth waging a war against Israel that can alter the features of the region. If you are in danger of a loss of this magnitude, then you must take a risk and use all your cards”.
