For the symbols of the Syrian opposition who are part of the National Coalition to reiterate that the door leading towards a political solution will not be opened until after the changing of the balances of power on the ground, is a blatant recognition of the inability to get the regime to accept any political initiative regulating its departure. And for them to insist on the departure of President Bashar al-Assad and the circle managing the confrontation as a condition or the subject of any dialogue, means they are refusing to sit around the table for several known reasons, the most prominent of which is probably the rejection of any such step by the fighters on the ground. Clearly, what would change the balance would be the provision of the fighting groups by Syria's Friends with the necessary equipment to tilt the balance in their favor and truly threaten the regime. The calls to strengthen the political and military opposition are not new. They are another expression of the “foreign intervention" request which divided the opposition at the beginning of the action. Still, it was a premature recognition of the fact that change from within is out of reach, bearing in mind what happened in Iraq, where the opposition came in on the back of American tanks. This recognition is being repeated by the opposition on a daily basis, when insisting on the qualitative weapons demand. Such a request was made on the eve of the first conference held by Syria's Friends in Tunisia about a year ago, but to no avail. The Friends' response was clear a year ago, as they spoke about Al-Qaeda, the Salafis and Jihadists, about the day that will follow Al-Assad's collapse, the future of the new regime and the fate of the minorities, leaving the door open before the political solution. Hence, they stood behind the Arab initiatives until their page was turned, then settled – along with Damascus' allies – for standing behind Kofi Annan until he had enough, resigned and went on to write the last chapter of his memoirs (!) Today, they are awaiting Lakhdar Brahimi's initiative, and he is waiting for them to reach an agreement in order to present it (!) It has become clear that the Syrian crisis, which is about to complete its second year, has been revolving in a vicious circle for over a year now, i.e. ever since the two conflicting sides realized it would be impossible to achieve any military victory that could turn the balance of power in favor of whichever one of them. Indeed, neither the regime achieved the settlement it promised while relying on the funds, weapons and elements provided by the Russians, the Iranians and their allies in Lebanon and Iraq, nor were the factions of fighters able to establish wide liberated zones allowing them to launch their operations. Until this day, the war has been one of hit and run throughout the country, from Damascus to Aleppo, Edlib, Homs, Hama, Deir ez-Zor and Deraa. And none of them was liberated from the “Al-Assad occupation," while the regime's army and thugs were unable to eliminate the terrorist groups present in them and their suburbs. What is constant nonetheless is that the killing machine is continuing to destroy buildings and displace those who were unaffected by the rockets, the aircrafts, the cannons and the mobile slaughters. More importantly, the regime is unable to manage its war without regional and international support on all levels, just like the opposition is unable to shake the balance of powers without regional and international assistance, although the little help it is receiving is enough to undermine the regime's illusion regarding its ability to achieve any victory capable of turning the clock backward. This leads to the clear conclusion that the battle – which is revolving around the initiatives to ensure political solutions proposed by both sides involved in the domestic conflict – is occupying a large part of the overall scene, at a time when those controlling these initiatives are the ones holding the ability to break the internal balance of power on the ground. Did new American Secretary of State John Kerry not repeat that President Obama preferred a political solution via negotiations to lead to Al-Assad's departure? Did he not show optimism about the emergence of an equation allowing the United States and Russia to reach common grounds and achieve that solution? Did the British defense minister not renew the European inclination in favor of a political solution, far away from any foreign intervention? Is this not what the Syrian regime's allies want, although their perception of the solution differs? It is no secret that what is happening in Syria is a civil war growing deeper by the day, and it would be useless to say that such wars only end through negotiations and political solutions. The problem does not reside in the regime's departure, as this regime was finished the day the first bullet was fired towards it. The problem also does not reside in the timing of its president's departure, along with the circle controlling the killing machine. It rather lies in the “external" hour which has not yet come. For around a year and a half, the big players were busy with their elections, battles and domestic oppositions, from President Barack Obama to President Vladimir Putting and Francois Hollande. They thus distanced themselves and became absent. And once they settled down in their chairs, they turned towards the results of the change introduced by the Arab spring. Now, they are undoubtedly reconsidering their positions towards this spring, which is why their serious involvement to seek a solution to the Syrian crisis has been delayed. Since the beginning, Russia feared the rise of political Islam, as well as the staging of foreign intervention and the repetition of the Libyan experience. And some of its circles did not hesitate to accuse the West of standing behind this change. As for the West, which welcomed the toppling of dictatorial regimes and celebrated the arrival of democracy, even if at the hands of “moderate Islam," it was horrified by the events in Tunisia and Egypt where the situation is threatening with the rise of fiercer and more terrifying dictatorships. It was also taken aback by what happened in Libya, where its arsenal was distributed to the point of threatening France's vital interests in particular and Europe's interests in general, in Niger, which boasts uranium resources, and Algeria, which boasts oil and gas wealth. This is not to mention the anti-America wave seen on many occasions, not the last of which being the killing of the American ambassador in Benghazi, the attack which targeted an Algerian oil facility, and the assaults against diplomatic missions here and there. These developments in the countries of the Arab spring pushed the Americans and Europeans to contain their enthusiasm, show patience and redo their calculations. This was reflected in their rising fears, not only towards the Al-Nusra Front, but also towards all the movements of political Islam. These fears were shared by some Arabs who were concerned by the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and its practices in power, as well as by the mounting influence of the Salafis and Jihadists. Consequently, they became reluctant to supply the Syrian opposition with effective weapons. Hence, when Washington and its partners call on this opposition to put forward its political program in detail, from the governance formula to the identity of the state, the constitution and the future and role of all the components, it is asking the opposition to reach the program it wants, i.e. Washington itself. This is also what Moscow wants, although with different elements. Therefore, the Syrians are not just required to agree over a constitution of quotas such as the one reached by the Lebanese and Iraqis and is threatening with the revival of their wars, as this might not be enough and might not herald an imminent solution. What is necessary is to have an American-Russian and an Arab-Iranian quotas formula, knowing that reaching such an international-regional formula over the alternative regime in Damascus would mark the beginning of an agreement over a new regional order in the Middle East. But the facts do not point to the imminence of such concord, before the unfolding of the situation in Tunisia and Egypt, along with what is happening in Libya and its great Saharan surrounding, the outcome of the Iranian nuclear file, the agenda of the American-Iranian dialogue and even the future of national dialogue in Yemen, on which the unity of the country relies. There is also the future of the Palestinian cause, Israel's role and new political and military creed which was imposed by the repercussions of the Arab spring, and the rise of hardliners on both sides of the conflict. It is not an exaggeration to say that the open confrontation between the major actors in the wide Middle East is part of the greater battle in East and Central Asia, and most countries neighboring China and Russia. This is why Obama's administration put forward the Pacific Ocean and China Sea as a first item on its political and military agenda, i.e. at the expense of the Middle East, without neglecting it nonetheless. Hence, concord inside and over the Arab region might be postponed until the dust of the wide confrontation in the eastern part of the continent dissipates, unless it is this region's fate to be divided once again in the form of prizes, along the path leading to a comprehensive deal between the major actors starting from Syria. Will the international community, which headed to Yemen a few days ago to stress its insistence on this country's unity and avoid its division along the oil shores, seas and passageways, disregard the repeated division of the Levant and the repercussions this will have over the Peninsula southward and Turkey to the north? What is urgently required is for the Syrian opposition to draw up its vision for the future and put forward its perception of or initiative for a political solution, not to drown once again in sideline conflicts, but in preparation for the imminent hour. This is due to the fact that the escalating human tragedy will force its timing on all the sides and will soon impose itself as an urgent first item. This should also be done to confront whatever Washington and Moscow are concocting in terms of a regime for Damascus.
