Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has put a stop to predictions about the possibility of Moscow changing its stance on the Syrian crisis, and warned both Western and Arab countries against intervening militarily under the slogan of “protecting civilians”, as took place in Kosovo and in Libya, considering Syria to be a “red line”. He also made it clear that Moscow's decision was based on information about the North Atlantic Alliance (NATO) preparing for a no-fly zone over certain areas of Syria, so as to provide armed fighters with the opportunity to take control of these areas under the protection and support of NATO. He added that there were other ideas being considered and promoted, such as “sending so-called humanitarian convoys to Syria in the hope of provoking a reaction on the part of government forces and border guards, and feigning a humanitarian catastrophe” in order to exploit it at the international level and entering the country under the cover of humanitarian concerns. The fact is that Russia has many reasons for taking such an intransigent stance, most prominently its fear of the “Muslim Brotherhood Spring” spreading to its home soil to complete its ideological siege and ignite strife within it, after it has been militarily besieged with missile shields. It is well known that the fall of the Syrian regime and the war against Iran, if it were to take place, or if the country were to undergo regime change, would pave the way for this “Spring” to spread eastwards to former Soviet republics, and the Muslim republics, of which the number exceeds 15 republics and the population 25 million. And although Moscow will not allow any resolution to pass at the Security Council for military intervention in Syria, it cannot prevent such intervention away from Security Council resolutions. And “let [those who would intervene] do it at their own initiative on their own conscience,” as Lavrov said. The fact is that the West and the Arabs are convinced that military intervention would be confronted with a Russian and Chinese veto, and with the opposition of the BRICS countries. This is why they have substituted it with intervention of a different kind, to assist the armed fighters and support them politically, militarily and in the media. In other words, intervention in all of its forms is currently taking place. Jonathan Steele quoted conservative American writer Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, who states that “Turkey, a NATO member, has become Washington's proxy and that unmarked NATO warplanes have been arriving at Iskenderun, near the Syrian border, delivering Libyan volunteers and weapons seized from the late Muammar Gaddafi's arsenal”. Giraldi adds that “French and British special forces trainers are on the ground, assisting the Syrian rebels while the CIA and US Special Ops are providing communications equipment and intelligence to assist the rebel cause, enabling the fighters to avoid concentrations of Syrian soldiers”. The fact of the matter is that what Giraldi said is no longer new, as Turkey makes no secret of the fact that it is harboring the “Free Syrian Army”, a group made up of soldiers who have defected and some militias that was recently formed. Ankara provides it with cover and allows its leaders to speak from Turkish soil. It also adopts its proposals. It is no longer a secret to anyone that armed fighters are wandering all over Syria and waging attacks against the army where they can. And perhaps the recent battles in Zabadani, Homs, Daraa and other places provide the best evidence of this. Peaceful protests in Syria have turned into a gang war being waged by groups of different orientations, brought together by nothing but their hatred of the regime and their desire to exact revenge from it and from its supporters, and to reach power at any cost. In other words, they have no vision for the future of Syria, and, with the exception of the Muslim Brotherhood, one cannot find within the ranks of the opposition a single political party or organized group with supporters inside of Syria. This explains the intransigence of the Muslim Brotherhood in refusing the participation of anyone who might compete with it within the National Council, rejecting the agreement between the Council and the Coordination Committees, and stressing the demand for foreign intervention. Indeed, it knows that the only way for this to happen, if it does without the approval of the Security Council, will be through Turkey, which has embraced the Brotherhood for many years, and that it will come to power with Turkey's help in excluding its many rivals. As for those who dream of democracy and pluralism, they will have to wait for another revolution. The gang war is exhausting Syria, shutting out a political solution and turning the interests of foreign forces into a priority – interests that involve at most division and at least weakening Damascus and turning its policies into those of a background actor. As for the regime which was famed for its pragmatism, it has sunken in the quagmire of sporadic wars and its ability to take initiatives has been greatly weakened.
