Between the realization by most Arabs of the reality of the major predicament affecting the war inferno in Syria, the deep disappointment of United Nations-Arab Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi and the Russians' anger towards the stubbornness of the opposition which is obsessed with the toppling of Al-Assad's regime and their efforts to make the Syrians lose hope in seeing salvation except through the stay of the regime, Moscow's insistence on creating a rift between them and the opposition – in parallel to the announcement of its willingness to host all parties – is extremely blatant. Hence, change is impossible and there will either be dialogue with Bashar al-Assad or further killing for an additional two years. In that context, the Iranian position – which is also refusing to relinquish the regime – appears somewhat advanced, since it is saying the complete opposite of what it is thinking, and abstaining from going as far as publically threatening the Syrians with the fall of 120,000 dead after the first 60,000, based on the 5,000 per month ratio. Hence, the blood dialogue is prone to witness additional rounds, while the roles are divided between Tehran and Moscow to revive the regime's persistence on the financial and military levels, and besiege the opposition with a psychological war, of which the simplest tool is pushing the civilians towards despair. This is especially true in the case of those living near the friction lines, witnessing the horrors and testifying to the chapters of destruction. The heart of Damascus on the other hand is beating calmly and peacefully, with the recognition of the Russians who are insisting on the stay of their nationals in the country, at a time when some are leaving via Beirut. What is the solution? Part of the problem is the fact that Moscow and Tehran have not yet realized that the armed opposition and the Syrian National Coalition are rejected by and refusing to participate in the dialogue, whose characteristics are being put forward by the regime, regardless of the division affecting the fighting factions or their ability to unify their goals upon the regime's fall. The other assumption is that Moscow's and Tehran's peaceful intentions are drawing up proposals for an impossible dialogue, at a time when they are wagering on the decrease of the revolutionaries' steadfastness and on ruining the revolution's image with horrendous and dubious atrocities. On the other hand, Washington is apparently converging with Moscow and Tehran over the call for a political solution which would prevent Syria's Afghanization or Somalization. But practically, the only difference is that President Barack Obama's administration is seeking a transitional command for Syria in Al-Assad's absence. And the only difference between the Americans and most of the Arabs is that which exists between those living on the edge of the hell, and a world leader siding with the good against the bad, but watching them from afar and counting the number of victims with his soft discourse. But the Russians scored points against him, after all the American and Turkish speculations stating that the Syrian regime's days were numbered have collapsed, and Erdogan was reassured by NATO's support to protect the Turkish soil with Patriot missiles. As for the Syrians' protection, it was left up to the forces of Popular Defense! But let no one blame French President Francois Hollande who had embarrassed the Americans with his fervor in defending the Syrian revolution, considering that the battle right now aims to cleanse Europe's backyard – i.e. North Africa – from Al-Qaeda, its sisters and the extremists who are very similar to those of the Al-Nusra Front in Syria. Is this the perfect time for bargaining? The Russians intervened by volunteering to transport troops to provide backup to the French military operations in Mali, so that it does not turn into Europe's Chechnya. Is this the model wanted by the West in Syria? This question is maybe on Putin's mind, and the reason behind his disgruntlement is the fact that all the partners in the West dealt lightly – since the beginning – with Kremlin's decision to defend the Syrian regime until its last breath. A soft American discourse is being adopted, Russian fangs are mobilizing fleets and transporting ammunition and missiles to refill the Syrian regime's arsenal and screams are being issued before the tragedy of the displaced and refugees abroad, amid modest generosity. As for those fleeing from one hell to another, they cannot do anything but wait for two years, knowing that the result is not guaranteed. The other option features patience, until the predicament affecting the formation of the opposition government is overcome. And what will be done afterwards? More patience will be shown until this government earns American, European and Arab recognition. But between the first and the latter, there will be further exterminations. Syrians are killing Syrians. This is the news. Before that Egyptians killed Egyptians, Yemenis killed Yemenis and Iraqis did the same in the context of what is familiar in the region. This is due to the fact that the winds of eradication are much stronger than the reform waves. Eradication has a method, even if it causes the toppling of entities and the revival of sectarian and introverted tendencies. After all that, is there any hope of seeing the imminent salvation of the Syrians from the suicide and the oppression frenzy? There will be no imminent political or military solution in Syria. There will only be killing and the pain of the Arab viewers whose despair won over the revolutions' spring. In the meantime, the weak in the times of extermination are hoping for salvation. What is wrong with Arab history? It keeps repeating itself with new faces and futile stages of devastation? Some in Syria's surroundings do not learn.
