- "How can you tell that the people want you to leave your position?" Bashar al-Assad. - "How can you guarantee that the weapons offered to the Syrian opposition do not reach the terrorists' hands and are not used in Europe?" Vladimir Putin. - "How can we guarantee that no chemical weapons sites are bombed in Syria, which would consequently spread chemical dust in the air?" Barack Obama Among the three, only al-Assad knows the answer: The people's wishes are detected through elections or a referendum. The Syrian president is the only one who does not appear puzzled in the face of the tragedy affecting his country and people, which is why he is still insisting that stepping down right now would be "national treason," at least for more than 90,000 people who were killed since March 2011. Among the three presidents, no Syrian in the land of extermination or in forced exile can see the light at the end of the dark tunnel. Some believed they could test the illusion of change in Iran, in the hope that the president who succeeds to Mahmud Ahmadinejad would be able to convince the Revolutionary Guard that the Islamic Republic is now in safe hands, and that the Guard can organize recuperation trips for its elements and officers in the Swiss mountains or on the banks of the Sochi lakes, following the epics they registered in the Qussayr battles and their twisting of the Syrian revolution's arm, even temporarily. But can the Syrians – who enjoyed for many decades the security provided by the "secular" regime – not show a little patience until the 2014 elections to have their say, whether with or against Bashar al-Assad? The tip of new Iranian President Hasan Rohani, who is known for his "moderation," is for the Syrian people to be moderate as well and not show exaggeration at the level of their demands, and to choose the democratic course. Apparently, Rohani did not hear about the bereaved, the handicapped, the displaced in their own country and on its boundaries that are drenched in blood, or about those who are devastated due to the selfishness of the big leaders around the world and the interests of their states. Some realism at the level of the policy of interests might be necessary to understand the course of the war which was dubbed "cosmic," as though the maps of the entire world are being redrawn in Damascus, Aleppo and Daraa. Why should we blame Putin who, no sooner did he exit the difficult battle with the leaders of seven Western and global superpowers, that he disapproved how they and others expected Kremlin to annul armament contracts with Damascus? Realism necessitates the recognition of his ability to twist their arms, for is cosmic war not one of attack and retreat? Hence, this policy is being used against Obama (who fears for the Syrian civilians from chemical air) at times, and French President Francois Hollande (who cannot act outside the Security Council and can only console the victims while awaiting Moscow's awakening) at others. The American president, who is terrified about the United States' involvement in another war, discovered based on evidence that the Syrian air force "cannot aim very well." Hence, what is the point of imposing a no-fly zone? As for the explosive barrels, those flying the F16 aircrafts do not know when the Syrian regime got rid of them, and the regime does not know which head will hit them. And since the Syrian warplanes "cannot aim very well," the problem does not reside in the combat planes which Putin intends to sell to Damascus, but rather in those flying them! In reality, the eight leaders who gathered at the Irish summit have never been more transparent. At this level, the summit statement's insistence on the formation of a transitional government with mutual consent between the regime and the opposition, is still revealing Moscow's likely sponsorship of the solution while granting Al-Assad a veto right over this government. Practically, the only novelty in this statement was the West's offering of more concessions in favor of Kremlin's vision for the management of the crisis. Once again, it did not mention al-Assad's fate, did not condemn the regime, and did not even accuse it of using chemical weapons. As for the Iraqi lesson, from which everyone wants to draw the lessons to avoid the "Paul Bremer curse," it can be summarized by a copy of the G8 statement which insisted on the following: "The public services (in Syria) must be preserved or restored. This includes the military forces and security services! Are they not still providing some sort of public service?" What is new about the summit in Ireland is that whenever Putin pounced on the Syrian opposition, Obama added another condition to trusting and making it strong. The first believes that nothing can ruin the relations with the American president, while the latter – just like the first – wants a commitment from the opposition during the Geneva 2 conference that it will try to "eliminate the organizations and elements affiliated with Al-Qaeda and distance them from Syria." Indeed, the concerns surrounding the growing terrorism and extremism in this country have exceeded all its people's tragedies. Many criminals have joined the opposition ranks. This was announced by the Russian president who cannot get enough of playing the terrorism tune – while Obama, Cameron and Hollande listen on – and defending the morals of an arms trader that never breaks his promises and a partner and ally who will never stab the "legitimate regime" in Damascus in the back no matter what it does. Do we know how many times Putin advised Obama not to fall in the trap of another war, while the latter is negotiating with the Taliban, i.e. Al-Qaeda's ally, and reviving its legitimacy to guarantee his pullout from Afghanistan? Between the trader and the fearful, the president is not betraying the Syrians.
