Why is Russia providing a safety net and intelligence-military-financial support to the so-called Shiite Crescent? And before that, one should ask about the durability of this expression following the revolutionary storms that swept the region, and the war in Syria, without which the Crescent project would collapse. Under the ceiling of this project in its improved version, the provision of S-300 missiles to Damascus becomes a factor of stability, while in the jargon of this stage, Iran has become the spokesperson of the regime in Damascus and the defender of Syria's sovereignty against foreign intervention, after having threatened in public to send troops to prevent the fall of this Arab country, which it considers to be an Iranian province. Moscow is trying hard to prevent the collapse of the Crescent, while Tehran is trying hard to defend its ally that constitutes a cornerstone in the backyard strategy which begins in Baghdad an ends along the shores of the Mediterranean Sea. And now that the Iranian presidential elections are nearing, there are only a few days left within the grace period granted by the P5+1 states (i.e. the five superpowers and Germany) to Iran, to make up its mind in regard to its nuclear project. This is why Tehran considers that the Syrian regime's exit from the crises of the cosmic war and the revolution is necessary, in order to ensure a deal that would salvage its regional areas of influence. As for Kremlin's willingness to go to the farthest extent in its confrontation with Washington and the West in general, it is clear that its large Syrian scene is nothing but a stone on the map of interests that revived the cold war. President Vladimir Putin delivered his blow, after he chose to pull the carpet from underneath the feet of America and Europe. Indeed, the first is still weakened by the wounds it suffered in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the cost of the two wars and the economic crisis, while the second is struggling with the crises of the European Union, i.e. the recession, unemployment and the revival of the identity debate in a continent which is considered by the Americans as being old and whose burdens and the cost of its protection they have to bear. Those who recall the promises made by Putin before returning to Kremlin, can perceive in Moscow's obstruction of any role by the Security Council in Syria and its insistence on providing a lifeline to the Syrian regime, as being a Soviet grip of defiance. Did Putin not reiterate his wish to turn the Russians' bitterness around, after they discovered the dupery of the West and its promises following the collapse of the Soviet Union? Is his dispatch of warships to the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea not one of the chapters of the new cold war that has turned into a fierce war inside and over Syria? From Damascus to Baghdad and Tehran – excluding Beirut – and whether the tripartite alliance (or the quartet alliance with Hezbollah) is called a rejectionist axis or a Shiite Crescent, it has become certain that throughout the past months, the master of the Kremlin who decided to exploit the American reluctance and European retreat (after Libya) on the Arab spring arena, will not back down on his sponsorship of the Crescent to dictate his conditions when the time comes for the redistribution of the positions of influence in many areas. And while it is true that Moscow used the pretext of Western dupery in the Libya war and the bitter loss of its interests in Iraq following the American-British invasion, what is also true is that its calls on Washington two days ago to remove the tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, will render Obama's mission strenuous during the summit meeting with Putin next month. All that the Master of the Kremlin is saying to the White House is that more is required, after Washington loosened up at the level of the missile shield project to appease the Russians' fears. And because Putin's ambitions are mounting, he is responding to the tug of war which was mastered by Obama and the West in Syria with a game of cards featuring the Russian interests, while escalating. He is also facing the American wager on time to break the Syrian ally, by enabling it to topple the card of foreign intervention in light of the disputes prevailing over the opposition and the pretext of the Takfiris and the Nusra Front to divide the Europeans as well. Whenever Obama makes one quarter of a step in Syria, it is countered by the Russian president with four steps. And if one may say that all the Syrians have become the fuel of a crushing cold war whose repercussions are besieging Lebanon and Jordan, one can expect a wretched end for the Geneva 2 conference if it is held. What is certain at this level is that the Syrian regime is rushing to secure military surprises to break its oppositionists. Putin carried out his strike, while Obama is still wisely waiting until he is reassured about the exclusion of the Takfiris. Hence, he is on a train that no one can predict when it will reach its final stop.
