This is perhaps the worst recommendation that can be given to someone in order to support their promotion to a new job. The least that can be said about the suggestion of Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu – which consisted of appointing Syrian Deputy President Farouk al-Sharaa to lead the interim period in his country – is that it will block the road for any potential role for Al-Sharaa in the future of Syria. Al-Sharaa might even be playing no part at all even at the present time as a result of his seclusion and the major doubts that the Syrian leadership has concerning his position ever since the revolution broke in his city, Deraa. This is not the first time where the name of Al-Sharaa has been mentioned in this context since he was also pointed out in the framework of the “Yemeni solution" for the Syrian crisis, which was suggested by the Arab initiative at the beginning of the year as a possible way out where President Bashar al-Assad would sacrifice himself in return for preserving the regime. However, Davutoglu took a step further by describing Al-Sharaa as being a “rational man with a good conscience who did not take part in the massacres." These epithets are certain to raise the Syrian president's caution level vis-à-vis his deputy. Davutoglu even said he was confident that Al-Sharaa was still in Syria. This implies that there is ongoing communication between the Syrian president and the Turkish side, since the Turks know where he is. The dismay of the Syrian leadership must have further increased because this testimony came from the regional side that constitutes the biggest source of trouble and the exportation center of the “terrorist groups" for the Syrian regime. All the above calls for wondering about the point behind the timing of the Turkish recommendation and the point behind burning Al-Sharaa's Syrian cards at this time despite the fact that everyone now knows that the horizons of the “Yemeni solution" in Syria have been blocked for a long while, since Al-Assad and his entourage are convinced they are capable of achieving a military victory against the opposition – as recently asserted by Iranian Foreign Minister, Ali Akbar Salihi, in quoting Al-Assad. Has Ankara realized that the impasse reached by the Syrian crisis has become an impasse for Turkey as well, one that needs a quick fix? Indeed, despite the permission granted to the cabinet of Recep Tayyip Erdogan from the parliament to use the army in external operations across the Syrian borders, Turkey is clearly not ready to go to war against Syria in order to respond to the repetitive Syrian provocations and luring attempts, especially in the absence of a NATO or western cover for the expansion of the Turkish operations in the Syrian lands. The question remains about the extent of coordination between Davutoglu and the Syrian opposition before suggesting Al-Sharaa as an acceptable alternative. Indeed, although the Turkish minister said that Al-Sharaa did not take part in the massacres of the security meetings planning for military operations; and although he did indicate that the Syrian opposition is tilting in the direction of accepting Al-Sharaa to run the interim phase, prominent opposition circles are not fond of the Turkish suggestion. The main reason is that these sources know Al-Assad will reject this suggestion, especially now that Ankara is calling for it. In addition, the opposition believes that the Syrian crisis has gone beyond the point of preserving the regime's body and only replacing the head. Indeed, the opposition is now convinced of the need to make a drastic change in the entire Syrian political structure. This brings us back to the question about the point behind burning Farouk al-Sharaa's cards on the part of Turkey at this specific time.
