The Americans are taking their time. They are in no rush. Their new secretary of state, who is carrying "ideas" to convince Al-Assad to step down, will soon launch a tour in Europe and the Middle East, aiming to listen to the viewpoints regarding Syria. It is as though the two years that have gone by since the eruption of the Syrians' uprising were not enough for Kerry to learn about this file, and as though the death of around 90,000 people in the war launched by the regime in Damascus against its people failed to convince the veteran secretary that the Syrians do not have the luxury to wait. As for Washington's calls for the departure of the Syrian president, they have turned into shy statements about the inevitability of change and coordination with the international partners to reach a diplomatic solution. But these partners, i.e. the Russians, and the partners' partners, i.e. the Iranians, are laughing out loud, and not covertly, as they listen to the American justifications for the prevention of the delivery of weapons to the opposition, and Washington's adoption of their concerns over the mounting numbers of extremists in the revolutionaries' ranks. In the meantime, they are supplying Al-Assad's army with everything it needs to proceed with the security solution, and helping it – along with Hezbollah – to form an Alawite militia to prevent the "fall of Tehran after Damascus." For its part, Israel is riding this wave of concerns. Indeed, as soon as the attack being waged by Hezbollah via thousands of its fighters inside the Syrian territories was exposed, it rushed to provide a cover for the regime, and its military leaders raised their voices by warning against the threat posed by the party on the security of the Hebrew state, the seriousness of its acquisition of untraditional weapons and the necessity of including it on the European terrorism list. This all took place in the context of the convergence of interests to defend a regime which opted for slogans instead of liberating its land. As for the American position towards the situation in Syria, it falls in a wider context, i.e. that of the attitude towards Iran. And until now, unlike his speeches and his eloquent statements, most of Barack Obama's positions and policies in the region during his first term and at the beginning of his second term have served and are still serving, whether directly or indirectly, the Iranians' untiring attempts to expand their influence in the Arab and Islamic worlds and enhance the strength of their allies in it. This was seen when Iraq was surrendered to them, when Tehran was given more time to realize its nuclear dream and when a call was issued for the organization of direct bilateral talks which any novice in politics knows they imply a prior and mutual recognition of the interests of each side, and consequently the recognition of Iran's right to interfere in the affairs of the neighboring states, as it is happening in Syria, Lebanon, Bahrain, Yemen and Egypt. In the face of this leniency towards Tehran, Obama's administration has nothing left but vague and tested promises regarding its attempts to "pressure" Israel to achieve settlement at the level of the Palestinian file, knowing that these promises have been reiterated for the thousandth time, and that Israel knows – if such attempts are actually being deployed – how to contain and maneuver around them. This has reached the point where its acceptance of the Palestinian state has become less attainable than it was prior to the American "pressures," especially since it is diligently proceeding with the imposition of a settlement-geographic reality that will not be easily changed. In conclusion, and through his Iranian policy – and consequently his Syrian one – Obama is taking a risk whose outcome will neither serve the Americans' interests, nor those of the Middle East region. Indeed, Tehran will not voluntarily recant its nuclear policy and its interferences to undermine the stability of the neighboring states, as long as it feels that Washington's main objective behind the imposition of economic sanctions is merely to weaken its position in the direct negotiations, and not force it to change this policy. As for the international partnership on which the Americans are insisting, it is linked to the balances of power on the ground and not to the principles of the others, at a time when the Syrians are paying the price out of their blood.
