Haytham al-Manna, the leader of the opposition Syrian National Coordination Committee (NCC) abroad has quoted a European official as stressing that the time has come to get Syria out of its crisis, arguing that what the West and its allies wanted has already been achieved: The Syrian state is exhausted, most of its infrastructure has been destroyed, its society has collapsed, and its army is in need of restoring people's confidence in it. Furthermore, reconstruction efforts will force Syria to establish different kinds of relations with the “donors," that is to say, its Arab surrounding, the United States and the European Union. It will take Syria decades to end its wars, and it will not be able to play any role in the region. This European analysis is exactly what has been required for Syria since the occupation of Iraq in 2003: Cancelling its role in the Middle East, ending its support for the Palestinian resistance and Hezbollah, and severing its alliance with Iran. These were the dictates carried by the then U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell to Damascus, and were rejected by Bashar al-Assad. All this has been achieved at the hands of the Syrians themselves, without Europe or America having to make any effort except distribute promises about a spring that has only brought death and destruction. In other words, the promises were delusions, especially when the leaders and officials repeated the mantra that the regime's days were numbered. It took about two years for some in the opposition camp to come out of these delusions. They asked for advanced weapons to hasten the demise of Assad's regime. But they were given weapons to destroy the infrastructure, universities, schools and drive millions into dispossession. They asked for money, a lot of money, to administer the “liberated areas." But they were given only enough for their accommodation, and to pay the salaries of some militants. They dreamt of a provisional government and international recognition, but they could not achieve that. They were told to unite but they ended up splintering into a Muslim Brotherhood camp that thinks itself the strongest on the ground and a gathering of liberals and democrats who have no real presence, neither among the militants nor the peaceful opposition activists. After their country was destroyed, they discovered that what their financers wanted is completely different from what they want, and that many among them have nothing to do with the protest movement, the revolution or calls for change, and only want revenge or enrichment. This reality drove some officials in the opposition Coalition into early retirement, and others into contenting themselves with their duties and carrying out their orders without any questions. This pushed the head of the Syrian National Coalition (SNC) Moaz al-Khatib to split and declare his intention to hold dialogue with the regime. The conditions he set for this dialogue are exaggerated so that his split would not represent divorce with his past and so that he would not be accused of treason. But it is a sufficient indication towards a major shift taking place in the ranks of the opposition, and the erosion of the coalition with some in it now beginning to espouse the vision of the NCC. Indeed, the latter had announced during its conference in Geneva that it would negotiate with the regime following a ceasefire and the release of political prisoners. What Manna did not say, but is rather confirmed by U.S.-Russian meetings, especially between U.S. Vice President Joe Biden and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, and then between each of them with Khatib separately in Munich (the latter was refusing to meet any Russian official), is that the dialogue between the two international poles revolves around sharing influence in the region and has nothing to do with spreading democracy or concern for human rights. The dialogue between the two sides will take a long time due to the complexity of the issues, from Syria to Iran and the Caucasus, not to mention oil and pipelines. What is certain is that Washington has contented itself with this much weakening of Syria and disabling its influence in its surrounding. Meanwhile, Moscow will agree to leave the crisis by sharing influence with the U.S. and consolidating its position as the second pole in the new cold war. The conditions for this are ripe in Syria. It is harvest time. Damascus is no longer capable of have an independent decision, and prolonging its internal wars has become a threat to neighboring countries and beyond. Khatib's defection will be followed by more defections. Promises for supporting the opposition until victory are now history.
