The Syrian National Council and all the Syrian opposition parties that are nowadays convening in Doha are standing at a crucial crossroads. They will either choose to reconsider their work methods and their structure, or sustain their previous approach which has only resulted so far in further division and inability to address the world with one speech under one headline. As for the harsh responses to the recent statements delivered by American Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, they do not spare them from their historical responsibility for the course which will be adopted by the Syrian revolution after twenty months of blood and destruction. The National Council in particular is entitled to fiercely criticize Washington and blame it for its reluctance, its non-provision of any assistance to the domestic action and its non-adoption of any stand in the face of Russian-Chinese stringency and the wide Iranian interference in favor of the regime. It is also entitled to blame Washington for not having supplied the armed groups with the necessary equipment to face the killing and destruction machine. But these responses might constitute a partial reading into Clinton's position. Indeed, the latter does not wish to clear her conscience by blatantly expressing her opinion vis-à-vis the Council, as she is bidding her post at the head of American diplomacy farewell within a few days. Therefore, she might have been attempting to guide the Syrian opposition towards a new path, which might facilitate any action undertaken by Barack Obama's new administration if he were to return to the White House in a few days. There is no arguing about the fact that the National Council is not solely responsible for the spread of extremist Jihadist groups that have started to mutilate the image of the domestic action and spread doubts and concerns in the ranks of Syria's Friends over the coming stage. On the other hand, the international community cannot be held responsible for the deadlock and predicament affecting the Syrian crisis, and there is no need to enumerate the reasons that have prevented and are still preventing the United States and Europe from militarily intervening to settle the fight in favor of the action. The Americans have not yet recovered from the Iraqi war and are still suffering in Afghanistan, and consequently, the leaders of Pentagon have no intention of opening a new front. Moreover, the intervention in Syria is extremely risky for many reasons, not the most important of which being Iran's interference to sustain President Bashar al-Assad's regime. In addition, Syria features a different military environment, including chemical weapons, a missiles arsenal and a radars network, and it would be difficult to separate all these targets from the civilian positions in any intervention to establish a buffer zone, far away from the regime's air raids. There is also Europe's reluctance, as well as its fears and economic meltdown, which are factors that have caused and are still causing the prolongation of the Syrians' suffering. The meetings in Qatar this week are an opportunity for the National Council to reconsider the expansion of its ranks and the accession of other forces to it. What Clinton said about the Council is not that different from what is said by some of its members. True, it does represent wide factions among the Syrians – and is even the most representative of these factions – but this means there are powers still outside this formation. So what harm would it do to establish a temporary council, in which the powers of the National Council and others are represented, especially those acting on the ground on the Syrian arena and powers that have left the regime when they got the opportunity? Is this not the formula being advocated by Riad Saif who is a member in the National Council? There is no arguing about the fact that Turkey had the upper hand in the establishment and sponsorship of the National Council, alongside Qatar which seems to be the most supportive of the council on the financial level as revealed by its budget that was recently published. There is also no arguing about the fact that this sponsorship favored the Muslim Brotherhood – the largest group in the Council – thus generating sensitivity among other forces inside and outside of it. The formula carried by Riad Saif to the Amman meeting two days ago and before that to Washington – knowing that Paris and other capitals were informed about it - might constitute an opportunity for the establishment of a temporary council, half of which would be representation by the external opposition headed by the National Council, and the other half by the forces of the domestic action. If this formula succeeds, it will definitely help Syria's Friends, at the head of which is the new American administration, recognize the new council as the “sole representative," thus paving the way before the besieging of the regime and diplomatic missions abroad and pushing the armed groups to unify their commands and authorities, far away from the Jihadist powers, in order to be responsible for any weapons with which they might be supplied to break the current balance. Such steps will definitely help change the course of the war, especially in the northern and eastern parts of the country, and facilitate the establishment of safe zones to which the temporary council would be moved. In the meantime, it is said that the latter might include fifty figures, 15 of whom represent the action on the field, 15 represent the National Council and 20 represent opposition forces and figures domestically and abroad. Qatar, which has not hesitated to support the National Council, can push towards the success of the formula advocated by Riad Saif, if it is convinced that the past experience was unsuccessful. As for Turkey which sponsored the current structure of the National Council for a long time, it has no other choice but to reconsider its position, especially since the numerous months confirmed that the existing council was not able to attract many powers, figures and groups which do not approve of the Islamists' control over it. Furthermore, the repercussions of the Syrian crisis have started to cast their shadow and consequences over the Turkish scene, where – in addition to the quasi-daily border harassments – the cause of the Kurdistan Workers Party has come back to haunt Recep Tayyip Erdogan's government. And while the fire on the border and the problems of the Syrian refugees are being solved, the Kurdish issue constitutes the greatest challenge for the Justice and Development Party. At this level, it is not easy for Ankara to seek the enhancement of its ties with the Iraqi Kurdistan province, after the Damascus and Baghdad doors were closed in its face. Still, growing closer to Erbil would distance it even more from Nouri al-Maliki's government and push the latter even further into Iran's lap. Moreover, the enhancement of the relations with Kurdistan will not only strengthen the Kurds of Iraq, but also revive hopes which were never off the table among the Kurds in Turkey and Syria regarding the attainment of independence, even if at its minimum levels. This is threatening one of the most crucial principles of Turkish policy. Such accurate calculations should push Ankara to exercise its role in getting the powers constituting the Syrian National Council – especially the Muslim Brotherhood which is not far away from Riad Saif's proposal – to agree over a formula bringing together all those opposing Al-Assad's regime. There is no doubt that Erdogan, regardless of his criticisms towards Obama's administration and its inaction towards the Syrian crisis, shares Washington's fears over the mounting extremism of the Syrian action. He also shares its great fear over the collapse of the Syrian state and what this will ensue in terms of the collapse of the institutions, at the head of which are the military and security one, and the spread of weapons in the hands of groups that are outside any control. Hillary Clinton's statements require another reading, far away from Washington's and the international community's responsibility for the abstinence to support the Syrian action. Following the presidential elections, the American administration will no longer be able to sustain this abstinence or hide behind the Russian-Chinese veto. It will not change its position against military intervention, but the call of the secretary of state for the unification of all the opposition forces is paving the way before the surfacing of one headline for all the regime's oppositionists. This might help dissipate the fears over the possible alternative and define the side that will receive financial and military support at a later stage, in order to topple the equation allowing the regime to control the field through its control over the country's skies. Washington and the influential European capitals are making sure not to overlap the Security Council for many reasons related to international calculations and interests related to other areas, and requiring a minimum level of understanding between the big players. Hence, the Syrians have no option but to raise one banner for all the political and military opposition parties, as the only way to impose a new reality that would not only weaken the Russian position, but also embarrass those hiding behind excuses and pretexts, at the head of which comes the talk about the division of the opposition. This will allow the delivery of aid that will gradually pave the way before the undermining of the domestic balance of powers on the battlefield. Since all the opposition movements share their rejection of dialogue with the regime and insist on seeing it leaving, should this not facilitate their overcoming of all other considerations and push them to meet Clinton half way, so that there is no longer a need to adopt a path which Moscow will undoubtedly block for several reasons, at the head of which being its refusal to see international institutions intervening to change regimes? Doha's meetings this week will provide a precious and maybe even last opportunity to change the course of the Syrian crisis and topple the equations that have governed it so far. So will the opposition movements rise above their personal and narrow considerations in favor of the action, and just the action?
