Syria had not yet drowned in its blood. It was witnessing peaceful protests, suggesting that the winds of the ‘Arab Spring' had arrived. Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei received an Arab visitor, and their conversation focused on Syria. One sentence summed up Khamenei's stance; he said, "The choice is clear in Syria. Either it reverts to the way it was, or none can have it." My conversation with the visitor took place later in Cairo. The man who conveyed the above wanted to explain to me why Hezbollah had crossed the border into Syria, and became involved in the conflict there. He said, "Everyone revealed their cards. There is no room for embellishment. We are in the midst of a Sunni-Shia conflict. The current conflict in and over Syria will determine the future of the balances in the region." A few hours earlier, I was at the office of Sheikh al-Azhar Dr. Ahmed al-Tayeb. He was clearly concerned about the conflict in Syria taking on a sectarian character. I felt his bitterness about Hezbollah's involvement in the conflict, which squandered its popularity that it obtained when its image was that of a party whose sole concern was fighting Israel. The reproach was not limited to Hezbollah alone. Sheikh al-Azhar did not receive convincing answers from a visitor named Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, though their dialogue was frank and transparent. Sheikh al-Azhar asked the visitor about Iran's position on Bahrain and the three UAE islands it occupies. He also asked him about the Iranian role in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. He did not hesitate to ask him about the conditions of the Sunnis in Iran itself. Ahmadinejad replied to the difficult questions with a simplistic answer, which placed all Iranian policies in the category of "resisting the usurping Zionist entity." It was difficult to conceal the misunderstanding between the two. The seriousness of the conflict in Syria has forced all countries concerned to bypass diplomatic phrases and forced them to reveal their cards. President Mohamed Morsi, who believed for some time that Egypt could forge ties with Russia and Iran to play a role in finding a solution in Syria, discovered the difficulty of doing so after Hezbollah's intervention. Morsi subsequently escalated against the regime and went very far. The ongoing carnage in Syria has changed the images of countries and roles, and revealed the extent of contradictory sentiments, conflicting policies, and old and new fears. The image of Iran as a regional leader in resistance and defiance has changed. Today, Iran is clashing with Sunni sentiments in the whole region. Its involvement in the Syrian crisis has deprived it of its halo and image. The defiance axis (Mumanaa) lost its only Sunni member, namely, Hamas. This development also led to changing the image of Hamas itself, and pushed it to position itself in its ‘natural camp.' The overt intervention in Syria has brought huge changes to Hezbollah's standing. It has placed it at odds with Sunnis in Syria, Lebanon, and the region. Hezbollah acted as if the fight in Syria was a life-or-death battle. It acted with the logic of "Either it reverts to the way it was, or none can have it." This gamble reinforced the accelerating collapse of Lebanese institutions. The ‘Lebanese arena' has now been appended to the ‘Syrian arena.' New wounds have been added to the wounds of history. Some believe that Lebanon itself will suffer from the logic of "Either we control it or none shall have it." This means destroying the arena if controlling it becomes impossible. The battle of Qusayr took the region into the stage where all cards are laid bare. The governments now have to align themselves with the inflamed passions in the street. The decision to arm the rebels made at the meeting in Doha in turn reflects the fact that the conflict has crossed the point of no return. The measures by the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) against Hezbollah supporters and financers were a clear indication. The battle in Syria has turned into a regional and international war. Russia is acting with the logic of "Either Syria reverts to the way it was, or none can have it," as well. And the United States, though hesitant and concerned about al-Nusra Front and its ilk, was forced in the end to accept the choice of arming the opposition. The Syrian regime was early to adopt the choice of "Either Syria reverts to the way it was, or none can have it." The hardliners in the opposition are adopting the choice of "Either Syria as we want it, or none can have it." An internal, regional, and international battle this fierce threatens to destroy Syria and export the devastation to the neighboring weak links. No one country can tolerate this many gambles and gamblers.
