It is neither green nor red. Obama will not rush, just as he will not stand by and watch. And it would not be an exaggeration to say that he does not know from where to launch a new effort to redefine the red line he set to separate two stages, i.e. the hit and run stage between the Syrian army and the regime troops on one hand and the armed opposition factions including the Free Army, the Islamists and An-Nusra Front on the other, and the stage of the regime's military settlement through chemical weapons. They are the stages of extermination in installments and extermination in bulk, regardless of the proposals of the head of the regime and those accused of carrying out a conspiracy to destroy Syria. Between these two stages, the American president is puzzled and trying hard to avoid sliding into the Iraqi nightmare (the invasion experience) once again. Moreover, he does not know which pressures to exert on the regime in Damascus – excluding the military option – to push it to launch a transitional political process. Obama is forcibly watching since he does not want to be in this position, while at the same time unable to play whichever role. He is not reaching the red line, but rather remaining at the orange one, and trying to immunize his moral stand towards the tragedy of the Syrians by addressing the same old advice to President Bashar al-Assad to step down. Between the two stages, the forces of the revolution are assuring that Syria is at a standoff, considering that the violence is ongoing without affecting Obama's reluctance and his decision to show patience, thus unifying the Americans and Europeans behind the principle of "Syria is not Libya." And because the United Nations will not intervene by force to investigate the use of chemical weapons, the red line is still under Washington's supervision. In the meantime, the Russians and Iranians are preventing the regime's veins from drying up, knowing that during the last few weeks, the latter regime gave enough signals pointing to its steadfastness in the counterattack campaign, based on an Iranian decision and under Iranian-Russian tutelage. And while it is true that the red line sometimes tilts - when being tested – in favor of the regime, what is also true is that the Russian-Iranian axis, along with all the forces of rejectionism or what is left of them, are sparing the Syrian army and its elite troops from resorting to chemical strikes. Consequently, nothing is changing, except the number of victims and Damascus' increasing urge to use excessive power and bomb cities with missiles. But have the dreams of the opposition and the revolutionary ambitions dissipated? Is the detonation of booby-trapped cars in the capital the result of frustration after this momentum? Are the explosions not causing further Western fears over the arming of the opposition and the strengthening of the extremists and fundamentalists? These questions have become classic, while the nightmare is growing closer and threatening with the repetition of the predicament seen in the Land of the Two Rivers, but in reverse. Indeed, during the American occupation, Iraq was the center of Iranian influence. The Iranians then became a ruler based on an American fait accompli! In Syria, tyranny is being renewed and extremism being fueled the more the conflict extends without international or Western intervention. And the more this conflict lasts, the more it is likely to see division and secession. The paradox today is that Nouri al-Maliki who is accusing his oppositionists of terrorism, believes that the threat facing Iraq is limited to the "sectarian challenges" of the Syrian crisis, and that the Baath in Damascus and the post-Baath authority in Baghdad are both the "victim" of a terrorist conspiracy. And unlike the West's ambiguity at the level of its support of the Syrian revolution and Obama's conditions to move from the orange to the red line, Iran has made up its mind and decided to save the "victim." In that sense, what Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said regarding the fact that the battle in Syria will last for a long time is true, as long as the armed oppositionists are unable to topple the regime. He is also right about the fact that Syria has "friends who will not allow it to fall in the hands of America, Israel or Takfiri groups." This was a clear announcement that these friends have made their decision and that Al-Assad's regime will not fall. As for the hinting to the fact that there are no Iranian troops in Syria "until now," it appeared to be a threat regarding the friends' axis preparations for that possibility. The prolongation of the battle is a possibility supported by the massacres, displacement and comprehensive destruction. All of these elements constitute fertile grounds for the Takfiri groups condemned by Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah's statements and rejected by the majority of the Syrians. But what Hezbollah's secretary general failed to answer to appease the concerns of the Lebanese and their fears over the winds of strife, regards whether or not the party's action within the Syrian regime's friends axis can prevent the flames of strife from crossing the border, at a time when Lebanon is in a status quo and on the bitter waiting list.
