Turkey attended the Arab summit, while Iran was not present as an observer state. There is no surprise about that, just like no surprise can be claimed by Tehran about the summit's granting of Syria's seat to the National Coalition that is opposing Bashar al-Assad's regime. As for the Iranian rush to proclaim the death of the Arab League's regional role following the issuance of the Doha summit decisions, summarized at the level of the Syrian file with the seeking of some sort of military balance between the regular army and the Free Army, it brought back to mind Jordanian Monarch King Abdullah the Second's warning against possible "regional confrontations" which might "lead to catastrophic results." The flag of the Syrian revolution was raised in the summit hall, thus marking a political victory complemented by the announcement of the collapse of the legitimacy of a regime, which is still being provided by Moscow and Tehran with reasons of survival. In the meantime, the latter are still rejecting the different Arab or Western stand, describing it as "interference in the affairs of a sovereign state." But as much as it has become boring to detect the duality characterizing the allies of the Syrian regime on the human and moral levels, it has become more disgusting for the oppositionists to hear the West continuously talking about the preparations for a step that would hasten the end of the tragedy, before seeing it recanting these promises either under the pretext of the opposition's division, or under the pretext of the containment of the extremists in the revolutionaries' ranks. In reality, head of the National Coalition Moaz al-Khatib was surprised by NATO's rush to undermine his hopes, a few hours after he delivered Syria's address before the Arab leaders at the Doha summit. This was seen when NATO rejected the use of Patriot missiles to strip the Syrian regime of its ability to bomb areas controlled by the opposition. But Al-Khatib's shock, which is as recurring as the disappointment prevailing over the majority of the Syrians vis-à-vis the American-European verbal support, will have no choice but to rely on the summit's decision which allowed the Arab League member states to arm the Free Army, by providing it with "all available self-defense means, including military ones." But the question at this level is the following: Will the Arab states – based on their conviction in the necessity of changing the balance of power on Syrian soil – provide the Syrian oppositionists with the necessary means to deter the ability of the regime's air force to inflict comprehensive destruction and eradicate their strongholds? Or will the support be limited to anti-shield missiles, which will impose permanent friction lines and an indecisive end? The opposition and the revolution gained a lot from the Arab recognition of their legitimate representation of the Syrian people, regardless of the regime's inability to grasp the changes in the region and in Syria after two years of futile arrogance and insane killing. And while realism firstly requires patience until the balance of power is changed to force the regime to accept the political solution, the daily facts, including the regime's full reliance on Russian-Iranian support, herald a long war characterized by fierceness to uphold the superiority of the regular army. In that sense, Moaz al-Khatib was not mistaken when he considered that NATO's rush to reiterate the improbability of seeing any military intervention, constitutes a message to the regime to do whatever it wants. Hence, further militarization of the conflict is likely, in addition to more killings, victims and attempts to tear apart Syria's Arab identity, one which is heavily tackled by the defenders of the regime's persistence under the ceiling of Russian-Iranian protection. And while the Egyptian rejection of military intervention in Syria appeared to be following in America's footsteps and did not conceal the reservations over the arming of the oppositionists, the changing of the balance of power on the ground is still the object of a tug of war between Washington, Paris and London. At this level, everyone might be surprised by the outcome of Turkish-Israeli reconciliation, which appeared to be the product of a caesarean birth performed with Obama's soft scalpel. Has the regional confrontation become global? There are Arabs and Turks battling with the Iranians and the Russians, at a time when Israel is busy with the establishment of a buffer zone in the Golan, behind the disengagement line. True, Syria is not Libya, but what is also true is that the rivers of blood will not be without a cost. In addition, Iran which perceives Syria as being one of its provinces was never as preoccupied as it is today with the defense of its positions of influence, from Iraq to Syria and Lebanon. It is therefore a fateful battle to export its revolution, one which grows increasingly heated the more Tehran is isolated on the Arab level and the more the revolution besieges its Syrian ally and the illusions related to the political solutions. The seat of the Syrian revolution at the Arab summit is being used by Tehran as a card to frighten the Arab regimes! Was this not done by Gaddafi following Saddam Hussein's assassination, thus warning the leaders: Who will be next?
