The United States and the western countries have a direct interest to abstain from interfering in the Syrian crisis. The reasons for tilting towards a no intervention are now well known, and the Syrian regime is even bragging about these reasons as it goes on staging a show of force against its people, and threatening them with its capacity to crush their revolution with no external party moving a finger to help them. One of the reasons consists of the receding popularity of any American resolution to interfere abroad mainly in the Middle East following the two horrific experiences of Iraq and Afghanistan. Just as a reminder, Barack Obama won the elections on the remains of these two wars after promising the Americans that he will save the country from any external involvement. Another reason is that despite the massacres and atrocities, the Syrian crisis has no direct effect on the interests of the American citizens so an intervention cannot be “sold" to the internal arena during the election times. There is no September 11 that can be used to justify the intervention similarly to what George W. Bush did during the two “invasions" of Iraq and Afghanistan. Third, there are no main resources in Syria such as oil or others. Thus, there is no fear that the fall of such resources in the “wrong hands" may affect the American and the western economy in general. However, the failure of America and the west to interfere and the fact that the Syrian regime is reassured by this, will lead to long term adverse effects not only on the Syrian revolution and its present directions but also on the situation in the entire region, especially those countries that have lived through the Arab Spring such as Egypt, Tunisia, and currently Libya, where there is an ongoing conflict between the liberal aspect of society – which is the dream of the majority that aspires for change – and the control of the one “victorious" party. The failure to interfere in Syria is pushing the armed men of the Free Army and others to look for support and sources of money and weapons in the face of the regime's oppression and power imbalance. Such sources have their own agendas regarding the nature of the Syrian revolution and the nature of the regime that will be installed in Damascus and perhaps in other capitals as well. It is important to look into the current regional cover that is available for the rebels with the gradual emergence of a Salafi direction in the slogans, behaviors, and political direction of the Syrian revolution's armed men, especially since there is a lack of an Arab cover – one that could represent an element of balance leaning in the direction of a liberal, democratic, and pluralistic regime in the post-Assad Syria. Naturally, such an outcome – i.e. scaring people off through the fall of the liberal option in a country that is known for its cultural pluralism – is a card that is being used by the media of the Syrian regime, which is claiming to be the only protector of this pluralism and the fate of the minorities, including of course the Alawite minority. In response to the western hesitation in intervening in Syria, an official at the Syrian National Council says: “If a certain side does not take part in the revolution to topple the Al-Assad regime, it will be hard for us to sit with that side after the victory in order to look into the identity of the new regime." This is a cause of concern with regard to the fate of the upcoming Syrian “spring." As the chances of the western interference drop, the regime's time in power will increase and so will its oppression. In parallel, the Salafist movements fighting along the opposition will grow more powerful. The vision of these movements concerning Syria's future is in disagreement with the vision of the Syrian majority including the majority of the opposition. Isn't this the strong card that the Syrian regime is using while taking advantage of the absence of any western role in Syria as if the dead victims were mere figures?
