It does not seem that the conflict in Syria will be settled any time soon. Furthermore, the renewal of the regional and international support in favor of Kofi Annan's mission despite all that is happening on the ground confirms that what is required is the sustainment of a minimum level of balance between the powers, even if this leads to the prolongation of the conflict which has not stopped, although the number of victims has retreated in the areas in which the international observers are deployed. The mission of the international-Arab envoy is not to find a solution or – in a best case scenario – lead to a settlement, considering that such a settlement would require conditions, the first of which being the offering of concessions by both sides, while they do not seem capable of growing close to one another. In that same context, the structure of the regime which is mainly based on the sect does not allow power transition or plurality, and any change would necessarily prompt bitter war and conflict similar to what is seen today, and not the dialogue featured in Annan's plan. And this is the predicament characterizing the crisis. Naturally, the last elections cannot be described as a step toward plurality and democratic change. They are part of a course adopted by the regime since the eruption of the action to respond to its Western opponents, especially since it is moving towards reforms. Certainly, these elections are without value, as they were staged in light of widespread boycott, murder and displacement. And certainly, the very idea that they are being conducted for the first time under the new constitution which stripped the Baath Party of the command of the state and society, is also without value, considering that the constitution placed in the president's hands all his previous powers, in addition to those of the “leading” party. This is why the regime will not be able to rely on their outcome to enhance or renew its legitimacy. Even worse, this outcome might block the way before any dialogue which Annan might call for following the deployment of the observers. In other words, it is yet another step to strip the plan of the international-Arab envoy from any content. Hence, Annan's mission aims at providing the necessary time for all the sides involved in the crisis – whether the regional or the international ones – to tend to more urgent affairs. Indeed, the United States is in no rush to change or amend its policy toward the events in Syria, as it is standing behind the mission of the former United Nations secretary general to remain distant from the overall picture. In light of the presidential elections in November, President Barack Obama's administration is focusing on the situation in Afghanistan, which could shift away from its known and expected course if new French President Francois Hollande were to rush the withdrawal of his troops from the country. Moreover, the administration is preoccupied with the explosive developments in Iraq, and what has surfaced and will surface at the level of the Iranian nuclear file. While hiding behind Annan's mission, Washington is not opposed to Syria's drowning in further weakness and division, as this can undermine its strategic position and role in the context of the rejectionism axis advocated by Iran. Moreover, regardless of the outcome of the events, it is not opposed to seeing Syria transformed into another Iraq, i.e. a country without any stability allowing it to contest the American and Western wishes in the region - regardless of the signs pointing to its recovery or its alignments – and one that is closer to division than to a cohesive entity that could constitute a dam or a strong fort that is impossible to subdue. As to Russia, which is occupying the forefront of the Syrian picture, it has other calculations and also needs a stage of calm. This is why its diplomacy is mobilized to control the rules of the international game on the Syrian level, based on the repeated threats issued by President Vladimir Putin on more than one occasion, in regard to the fact that he will not allow any unilateral step on the international arena that does not take into account his country's opinion and interests. The man is aware of the fact that the principle of international intervention to protect the civilians no longer takes into consideration the sovereignty of the states, and has been an understandable and accepted principle since the end of the Cold War, before being finally legalized by the United Nations' General Assembly in 2009. And while he is holding on to the veto to prevent any intervention in Syria, he knows that “Syria's Friends” did not express a wish to undertake a unilateral step at this level. What is important is that both the American and Russian sides are not showing any willingness for dialogue to pave the way before a deal, as long as the regional elements are not ready and as long as the circumstances of such a deal are not yet ripe. This is probably what prompted the returning president to Kremlin to apologize for not being able to attend the G8 summit in Washington. As to the regional conflict between the Turkey-GCC bloc on one hand and the Iranian-Iraqi bloc on the other, it is no less fierce on the political arena than the ongoing bloody conflict between the two sides of the crisis in Syria. This conflict is being reflected on the ground and on more than one scene throughout the region, from Yemen to Lebanon, going through Bahrain and some “pockets” here and there. Moreover, the tensions within these two camps are being fueled, namely the conflict between the wings in the Islamic Republic and between the Iraqi components, in addition to the mounting tensions paralyzing life in Lebanon and the confusion affecting Ankara's domestic calculations. What is dangerous at the level of the conflict of the regional players is that it might lead to the changing of the rules of the international struggle, and maybe even implicate the big actors in what they have so far been avoiding. The mobile explosions in the Syrian cities have become a quasi-daily practice and threaten not only with the undermining of the last pillars of Annan's mission, but also with Syria's transformation into an Afghan case or model. This is the reason behind the Russian persistence on defending Damascus, regardless of the number of victims and the suffering of the refugees and the detained. Indeed, Moscow is well aware of the fact that the calls of some for the repetition of the Afghan experience also target it, just as they target the regime in Syria, considering that if this regime were to fall, it would mean a resonating Russian defeat similar to the one which followed Kabul's fall and the Soviets' exit from the country. This model is also alarming Washington, and causing its reluctance in rejecting the militarization of the protests or the arming of the opposition, even if to defend the unarmed civilians. Moreover, this explains its allusion to the fact that the Al-Qaeda organization is behind every explosion in Damascus and elsewhere. By doing so, it is sending a warning to Russia, as much as it is justifying its refusal to push toward a foreign intervention to end the Syrian people's suffering. Could it possibly be paving the way before a Turkish or NATO intervention in the context of the war on terrorism through its reading into these explosions? The United States knows very well that the regime in Damascus will not relinquish the security solution, that this option has not succeeded and will not succeed in extinguishing the action, and that the crisis will not end without foreign intervention whose repercussions might be more dangerous than what is seen in Syria today. It also knows that the repetition of the Afghan experience will have destructive consequences throughout the region. Indeed, the Al-Qaeda of Peshawar and the Taliban regime undermined the system in the entire Great Middle East, and even Washington, New York, Moscow, London, Madrid and others. Moreover, many states have not yet recovered from the Afghan shrapnel, from Pakistan to Yemen, Somalia and Mali. And while Washington has so far been pushing its partners and friends to show patience in approaching the Syrian crisis, will it sustain that position if the conflict were to evolve and grow closer to the previous and current situations in Afghanistan or Iraq? Washington and Moscow both know that Annan's mission will remain a headline for a stage, regardless of its length and regardless of whether the explosions were carried out by Al-Qaeda, the opposition or the regime. The solution to the crisis has become impossible and the door will continue to be open before the neighbors' wars with which they will replace their direct wars. The same goes for the big players, even if there is nothing left of the Syria we know.
