Damascus explosions yesterday occurred at the junction of several courses, which renders the search for the side that benefitted from them futile since all the arrows point towards a single accused. Both crimes featured numerous technical and security elements which are difficult to discuss, namely: How were more than 1,000kg of explosives introduced to Damascus (according to the statement of the Syrian Interior Ministry), or acquired there, and how were the two bombs manufactured and the suicide bombers equipped to head to two sensitive locations in the city, without the numerous and highly fierce security apparatuses receiving any signals in this regard? Moreover, why were the two explosions seen following the People's Assembly elections and before the announcement of the results? How can security posts in Damascus and Aleppo - among others - be the object of such attacks at a time when the headquarters are heavily and closely guarded? Why are specific areas in the Syrian cities repeatedly targeted (the Midan neighborhood in Damascus for example), while others with a different sectarian and popular structure are spared? Numerous are the questions which could be added to the latter, namely: Why is the official media excessively showing severed limbs and blood in a way violating the sanctity of dead and the ethics of the profession? (We must recall at this level that all the American media outlets had abstained from showing the corpses of the victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks). And what is the meaning of the summoning of supporters to shout “long live the president” in front of the international observers, at a time when the corpses are spread everywhere? At this level, the pictures aired by the television channels and carried by the SANA agency provoked surprise, as they casually showed images of severed and mutilated human remains. Nonetheless, the media performance in a country such as the “Syria of Al-Assad” cannot be dissociated from its political and security counterpart. The biggest proof for that is the talk of the Damascene about the sound of explosions heard almost every night and followed by showers of bullets, only to figure out the next day that they were mere sound bombs thrown in the residential areas. The security mind knows how important it is to undermine the civilians' psychological and social stability in times of crises, by imposing a climate of terror and concerns to force them to insist on the status quo and to avoid the unknown. The same happened in Lebanon during the spring and summer of 2005, back when massive explosions used to target a mall or rock a prominent street every few days in order to eliminate the Lebanese people's sense of security and increase their psychological tensions. Once this goal is achieved, the reaction of the citizens seeking the protection of their lives, the lives of their loved ones and their sources of livelihood can be expected, as they will call for the imposition of security at whichever price, while distancing themselves from any proposal featuring change or rebellion against the existing regime. However, this assumption should not completely exclude the possible implication of sides with different agendas, trying to settle numerous and accumulating scores with the Syrian regime. This practically leads the responsibility back to the rule of the Baath regime and the pattern with which it has been managing its disputes in Syria and throughout the region for the last half a century. Indeed, from the Syrian people and their opposition to the Salafi Jihadists, the Palestine Liberation Organization and the near and distant states, the two presidents Hafez and Bashar al-Assad did not spare one side from the policies of intimidation and coercion, reaching the point of dispatching booby-trapped cars, suicide-bombers and carriers of silenced guns. At this level, it is not unlikely in our region to see some retaliating whenever they get the opportunity. The paradox here – and in light of the current situation – is that the explosions are serving the interests of the regime, regardless of the side perpetrating them.
