Naturally, there was an equal amount of interest in the diplomatic Russian, Chinese, and Iranian attendance of the National Salvation conference in Syria, as the regime allowed for holding this conference in the heart of Damascus. The conference was concluded by announcing that change and the solution in Syria can be accomplished “by toppling the regime along with all its symbols and bases." This trilateral attendance even overshadowed the diplomatic attendance of other countries as well as the conference's resolutions because the organizers themselves, namely the National Coordination Committee for Change, stated that they asked these three countries to secure the safety of the conference and to allow for its organization without any abuse against its participants akin to the “kidnapping" of three conference members in the past. Regardless of the ongoing debate between the internal and external oppositionists – the former group is the party that organized the conference – and regardless of the mutual accusations that once again revealed the major gap in the ability of the oppositionists to unite, one must note that the regime would not have allowed this conference to be held if it wasn't for the progress achieved by the oppositionists on the ground and their military control over additional areas although the power balance is still there. This balance is based on the fact that the Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, is unable to settle things against the entire opposition camp, while the latter camp is still unable to topple him. This implies many tragedies as a result of Al-Assad's denial of the presence of a revolution against him and the methodological killing operations that he is conducting against his people. The same aforementioned inference can also be applied to the Russian-Chinese-Iranian sponsorship of the conference, since these three countries would not have been able to do this if it wasn't for their feeling that the Al-Assad regime is losing more ground and that its control is growing thin. This support has a specific mission in the arena of the international deliberations concerning the Syrian crisis. The political document issued by the conference of the internal opposition adopted the “National Covenant Document," which was issued in Cairo on July 3 by the external and internal opposition factions, and which indicates that “the political solution starts with the toppling of Bashar al-Assad and the power figures in addition to holding accountable those people who are implicated in the killing of the Syrians." Nevertheless, Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran need the loud tone of the internal oppositionists in order to grab whatever suits them from the conference's document such as the immediate ceasing of hostilities on the part of the regime and the opposition sides, in addition to establishing an international and Arab monitoring system and asking the Arab Envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, to call for an international conference around Syria in order to look into the best political ways to launch the interim phase. This last point is what really matters for Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran. This is the reason why they have sponsored the conference. The three capitals probably pressured the regime to allow for holding this conference and they disregarded the insistence of the conference's participants on the priority of Al-Assad's departure specifically because of this point. The three capitals are still clinging to their position that rejects Al-Assad's toppling as a cornerstone for a political solution. This position is based on several pretexts such as the Russian pretext that the Syrian population is the only party that can make such a decision; or the Iranian pretext that this demand is an “illusion" (there is diplomatic information indicating that Tehran is very adamant on this point to the extent that its officials are saying that the alternative for Bashar al-Assad should consist of Maher al-Assad). Thus, the “rejection of the external interference" as brandished by these three countries and a part of the Syrian opposition, has turned into a slogan that contradicts with the call for holding an international conference and for establishing an international and Arab surveillance system. This contradiction is highlighted by the fact that these three countries are trying to anticipate the field developments and the continued weakening of the regime; and to precede the western suggestions to increase the level of support of the Free Syrian Army by making a suggestion based on the internal Syrian opposition. This suggestion will be made during the discussions of the UN General Assembly in New York where the Syrian crisis will be featured as a main item in the deliberations of the presidents and the draft resolutions that will be discussed there. The idea of the international conference is in fact an expansion of the Geneva Conference, which was held last June and which ruled out Tehran and Saudi Arabia. Such a conference calls for preliminary agreements between America on one hand and Russia and Iran on the other, since all the concerned countries are dealing with the Syrian crisis in connection with the hanging files between them. In addition, an international effort of this caliber will lead to undermining the Egyptian initiative, which resulted in the forming of the quarterly communication group. Meanwhile, regardless of the internal oppositionists' good intention in calling for an immediate ceasing of the hostilities, the answer to this demand came from Al-Assad himself when he met Brahimi on the September 15 where he told him that “the real problem consists of the mixing up of the political axis and the field events." This means that he agrees to hold a dialogue in parallel with the continued battles and boundless killings. He had previously said that he will win the war whatever the price is.
